Should the Death Penalty be legal?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ก.ย. 2024
- Ever wish French Baguette Intelligence could stalk you in every platform like an obsessed ex? Flattering, but we don't have time for that. HOWEVER, you can join us on the following platforms now:
Join our Discord server: / discord
Twitter: / fauxcares
Facebook: / frenchbaguetteintellig...
Patreon: / frenchbaguetteintellig...
Reddit: / frenchbaguetteint
Special thanks to our Patreon, Evaly von Karma, for granting us with the assets to include the new sprites for Katherine Hall (Mafalda) and the updated HD poses for Shi-Long Lang (C.O).
We also thank Pêle-mêle for creating the custom sprite for Phoenix Wright used on this video, as well as animating the custom Kay Faraday sprite used, created by RainyMeadows. Special thanks to RainyMeadows as well.
Man, that was almost an Oscar speech right there...
Here's my take: 1-3 years of re-education (depending on the crime committed.) in that time the convict will need to be evaluated to have knowledge of how to do at least 1 job and that their prior action was wrong and will not be repeated, if within this time limit then they will either (depending on the crime committed.) be removed from their assigned housing (This branches out into an entire ideology.) or executed.
And the Oscar for Best Special Thanks Speech goes to: Faux Cares!
what do you think of finlands take on the justice system? They said that there is some sort of rehabilitation system for criminals there, and i guess its working, but i havent seen the peoples opinions about this yet
I took a break from watching these a while back, and now I remember why I did.
Y’all are horrible, uneducated, unempathetic monsters.
@@themanageriguess Come to an experimental private prison near you! Wanna sign a contract with Septuse or Pensuke and become a magical boy?
Name a more dynamic duo than a French Citizen, and Public Execution
Americans and not using the Metric System
The bri'ish and shitty teeth
England and terrorism after a good football match.
Florida and Florida man
germany and my lawyer has advised me not to finish this joke
The whiplash that the end gave me was astronomical, I didn’t expect the closing point to be “ok then loser, come give me a smooch”
I like how this just straight up ended.
There's no resolution.
We just... Stop.
With Bowl's amazing proposition for a kiss.
Amazing.
Best debate ever written.
"are you drunk"
"No, high."
I thought Mafalda, Gringo, and CO won this time.
@@shadestrider1033 wow, why? No offense, I am just curious, it's just looks a bit funny how they "lose" most of times from what I've seen and it resembles power levels. I think with FC, Bowl and Harry sitting at top
Spermacist is an outerdimensional being that cannot be scaled in the same levels
@@joit905their points make The most Sense and are more thought out honestly, The others are Just pretty much saying "i don't wanna die, i don't do crime, might die If they're wrong about me but it's cool", plus, there were times where bowl Just Said something a high person would say and didn't refute what was said
@@nicholassgoberobowl is legit just: “we men we gay as hell and kill those who need to be killed. Now kiss me I’m feeling horny. You have five minutes.” Arguably the most entertaining baguette friend on the channel
"You can't be that shallow!"
"Don't underestimate Bowl!"
Bowl is that guy who takes "how stupid can you get" as a challenge.
And then rubs it in your face once he sets a new record.
Bowl is a mystery to me. I pretty much never agree with his takes but he makes me laugh the most and I can’t help but be enchanted by his charisma.
Same here.
His words always manage to fill us with content and laughs, the charisma stat of his is definitely maxed out.
There is also a small clarity in his statements though, that makes me agree with atleast one part.
Yeah, he's Bowl after all
"Human rights should be conditional"
I don't think Cleo understands how dangerous that truly is.
live on the edge or dont live at all
They should be and they are, you just don't understand it. It has also already been proven by Faux Cares in this video lol.
Firstly, women shouldn't get human rights. What? She didn't stated what the conditions should be, I can decide by myself.
based*
I dare her to look at the current state of Afghanistan and repeat that unironically.
I swear, people take our rights and comfort for granted.
Disagreements to the death penalty fall into one of 2 sides
“It’s morally incorrect”
“They don’t suffer enough”
There's also the third part that can happen when the person is generally ambivalent: The death penalty costs more than lifelong incareration
It would cost even more than lifelong incarceration if we put them to work as cheap labor while locked up
Death penalty can also be a better deterrent for crimes
It’s honestly like watching two factions in a WRPG, both are ideological memes. It’s just jarring how people actually go full strawman.
@@polarbear6479 that's a slippery slope towards slavery
I thought we agreed human experimentation was much more useful, with that the death penalty is useless
Different discussion. I'd prefer that, as it is more productive, but when we consider that it's not going to happen, we ask ourselves a different question.
@@frenchbaguetteintelligence fair enough
If only ethics wasn't such a bitch...
@@frenchbaguetteintelligence true
Not too big on the idea of just torturing anybody who has the death penalty. Torture is in fact not cool or fun
Compromise: the death penalty is legal but only for politicians. We put a guillotine outside of every government building just to remind them.
add millionaires into the mix and now were cookin
@@julien827 dirty commie
The based answer
Sounds fair
Based.
I thoroughly agree with the point made in 6:10
It is brutally accurate in detailing all the possible things that can happen while you've been in prison. But it's still a nonzero chance that you can pull through it.
However, I feel that Critical left out, or is unaware of a specific detail. Most of the people who do pull through aren't motivated with some whimsical hope, but it's usually an aggressive mentality, such as pure spite,
I've met exactly two people who came back from rock bottom, They had looked back at the hell they've been through and what it cost them, saw the option for the Final Release but spat in its eye, deciding that it would mean they'd have lost the fight. In short, they're still alive and kicking out of sheer force of will and spite. I've no idea what one of them does nowadays, but the second person is now one angry handyman
That's true, but I don't think many people will pull through to spite hell, only a few could do that.
And others might not have such abysmal chances, or the motivation to keep going.
But, we all already know that lol
Those people you talked about sound kinda cool tho
Thief is very little benefit to the death penalty, while there is a large risk of killing innocent people, as while as giving the gov authority to kill people. Plus it takes years for death row prisoners to be executed, execution is more expensive then a life sentence, and modern execution methods have seemingly only gotten more unreliable since the guillotine.
You know about the guillotine, but didn't use it as an example of a cheaper cost?
@@CR1MSONACE Prolly not the excecution itself that costs money, but the legal fees. Cause when a persons life is on the line lawyers have to spend way more time reviewing and preparing. I also read somewhere that the legal fees could be like a million per case.
@@entotre9445 I wasn't considering the fees, I was just thinking about the guillotine killing someone. Cleaning is really cheap too.
@@entotre9445 imagine spending millions of dollars to be able to tell if a guy who stabbed children and elderly people in front of everyone is guilty or not.
It's just a stupid system, not the death penalty that's costly.
There is a huge benefit to the death penalty. We will no longer have to walk on the same earth with the irredeemable scum that takes pleasure from hurting people.
Also give me a break, I don't care how much something costs when we are talking about justice. I would rather pay, let's say, 10000 coins to put down a mf who stabbed my daughter than 5000 to feed him to the end of our lives.
I think this is the first time I've disagreed with Cleos point of view.
Probably because I agree with Gringo. He generally has the most moral standpoint, even if he isn't the best at articulation.
State mandated murder is never acceptable, even as a punishment. Have the prisoner work with the pay repaying the victims - this produces value. Death creates no value and just justifies the idea some people can be Murdered whilst others can't and that's never a good route to go down.
The falsely accused can be released from prison. The falsely executed cannot be brought back to life.
indeed. I wasn't expecting Cleo to take such an inhumane stance in this video, but even then, I find myself disagreeing with most of the people I usually agree with here, and agreeing with the people I usually disagree with.
@@basicallyjustagamer7115
Dude, she’s Balkan. Balkans and being exceptionally drastic, hardbitten is a meme and a stereotype for a reason.
Gringo is either discount Martin Luther King or a total Tool. There is often little in between.
gringo is the best character in the fbi cinematic universe
@@kitkatsinAlaska
That’s a weird way to spell Harry.
Seems this debate mostly went with a false dichotomy: death penalty or life sentence (or at least a very long encarceration).
Only until the end did that one guy finally say the magic word: rehabilitation.
The system right now is more focused on punishing that rehabilitating.
"Bad human. Stay in this cell for however many years and think about what you've done."
I wonder how that will turn out.
Oh yes, of course, we should give those guys awards in form of a free therapy for what they did! And gold stars stickers too!
This is prisons we are talking about, not kindergarten
@@LuzikArbuzik77 most crimes are committed because people aren't right in their head, so therapy should be the best thing
There's no reason to punish someone other than hoping it would deter others (which doesn't happen)
@@tuluppampam But it isn't my point. Some people are "right" in their head and they are doing things they did with a perfect understanding of what they did. Breivik is the perfect example if you are looking for one. If you are talking about people that are literally irresponsible for their actions because of their mental condition, then I agree that killing them is pointless. But some guys are aware and happy with what they did, and treatment isn't going to do the job, because they don't need one. They need a punishment.
Death penalty doesn't have to deter from crime more than prison. It's not an argument for it, but also not against it.
I could agree with rehab being useful for people responsible for lesser crimes. You know, those that don't involve killing innocent people and urinating on their bodies for lols, for example.
@@LuzikArbuzik77 in therapy you could know if the criminal will benefit from it or if money will be lost on trying, help those who can be helped
@@LuzikArbuzik77
Really now?
If they committed a crime, it's because something went wrong along the way.
Killing them or throwing them in jail to rot are both lazy ways to deal with the problem, and doesn't even tackle the root issue, which is what lead the person to commit the crime in the first place.
A drug addict could resort to murder and theft to feed their addiction, but is removing them from the public and making them suffer really the solution? Wouldn't addressing their addiction be way more productive? Get them clean, point them in the right way?
You need to think about who really benefits from this punitive system that's in place in the US. A hint: not the taxpayers.
People often forget that executing someone in the U.S generally costs more than life in prison
Edit: Since some people in the replies don't seem to understand why, it is primarily due to a drawn out legal process, not the method of execution.
And bringing up tax money is funny when there are like, a billion other ways to make the spending of public money more efficient.
Or just, making sure the more wealthy pay their fair damn share.
Just use Guillotine like we did, you just have to clean and sharpen the blade and it's ready for the next (+it's completely painless, it doesn't torture the criminal)
which ill never understand. a bullet and covering the room in plastic would only cost like 20 bucks. hell you could probably get it done for free if someone donates the bullet.
@@DragoRaRaRa I'm guessing funeral costs are the worse part.
If someone could please explain that to me, that'd be great. Bc that just doesn't work out in my head lol
The problem with the death penalty is, as touched on in the video, merely an extension of the problems inherent in the justice system in which it inhabits. All arguments for and against it are simply downstream effects. Prejudice, inaccuracy, expense, cruelty -- to focus on the death penalty is to miss the forest for the trees.
The biggest problem, at the end of the day, is waste -- the fact that a life sentence and the death penalty can be seen as functionally equivalent to both the punished and the state is absurd. Life should not be over once one is in prison. At the minimum, they could be used as a warm body -- creating some useful work for their continued existence. There's a farmhand shortage in the U.S. (and all sorts of other industries) -- making use of prisoners in such capacities would be a boon to all. If they show interest and aptitude, they could learn a trade or go to school, possibly contributing in science or other fields.
Obviously, that comes with issues -- just read into neoslavery to get an idea of how it might be abused. And there's plenty of logistical considerations. But the fact that both the death penalty and life imprisonment are wasting a resource that could be leveraged to provide some amount of compensation for the crimes they committed is insane.
There is actually a prison in Norway that strives to redeem people instead of punish and it is actually going pretty well. There is a shop in the prison with no security cameras and nobody has stolen from that shop.
This is fascinating. Tell more.
It's because it's Norway
Not that i find the experiment dumb, but i would love to see it applied in countries with high crime rates with wo death penalty
@@bruschetta7711 then other countries should just be more like Norway 🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️
@@thebaldpizzaman6319big ask, Norway is ethnically, racially, and culturally homogeneous. It makes cultural and legal decisions much simpler.
@@prez.cookie980 No it isn't, there are like a million refugees there, and they provide them with good lives and financial stability, the only thing the rest of the world needs is a government like Norway's.
This argument is dumb because it all relies on the fact the execution methods are reliable. Unfortunately, the current execution methods often fail due poor human error and are still inhuman because of how executions get dragged out. Jacob Geller did a far better explanation than I ever could, and it highlights just how poorly this debate is being brought up nowadays.
I find the notion that a death penalty must be dignifieed weird. life is the most basic right losing it means all else follows. The end result is identical whether they are tortured or not. they are dead. guillotine would be most efficient and cost effective.
Nobody cares?
@@Smugly33810 buddy, have you never heard the phrase “put them out of their misery?” People do not like to extend suffering, nor do they wish to witness it
@@Smugly33810 Cruelty is literally a banned punishment. Torturing someone to death is not ok because, as you say, the end result is the same, so why not be a little kinder than the monster you're putting down? Or is delivering evil unto evil ok instead of simply retribution?
@@anubis7457
It becomes retribution when delivered unto evil for the sake of retribution.
I definitely feel we are too cynical about rehabilitation. Murders are not usually random. They are often emptionally driven mistakes. Mistakes that need correction, but still.
Very very few people are truly irredeemable sociopaths. Hell, not even every sociopath is bad - some learn how to function and make a good positive influence despite their messed up brain chemistry.
I am much more interested in creating thorough attempts for rehabilitation first and then apply whatever punishment. At that point, we gave them a chance, if they didnt take it, thats on them.
"Very very few people are truly irredeemable sociopaths."
And those are cases where the death penalty should be applied. Being pro-death penalty doesn't mean "yeah let's chop off the head of everyone who murdered someone", it means at the very least that you recognize that there are some crimes which are so exceptionally horrible that only capital punishment is the appropriate response.
@@stefan4159 I agree. Right now though we stick people in a cell and care more about everything other than if the person could be reformed or redeemed, at least in the US. I can't feel comfortable with the fact that we kill people when we are so often wrong or biased or both.
Basically, I don't like the death penalty in practice because I don't believe that people will come around to that kind of law enforcement, at least in my lifetime
The problem with the death penalty is exactly as Gringo said. Justice isn't flawless, and it's only a matter of "when" that an innocent will be executed for a crime they did not commit.
When you factor in also the fact that the carceral system of the United States is privately owned and is basically an industry, you also get to the fact that law enforcement is encouraged to get as many people incarcerated as possible. There are many reported cases of people being pressured and threatened into confessing crimes they did not commit.
"But spending years in prison isn't much better"
No it isn't indeed. It's the entire system that needs to change, but at the very least stopping profit-driven motives from getting innocent people killed would be a good start. Now that doesn't get to the issue of the death penalty in other nations where the issue is not the same. But law enforcement is still not flawless anywhere. If the carceral system treated the people within it with some dignity, being condemned wouldn't be seen as a fate worse than death in the first place.
The only ones that should get the guillotine (or whatever) are the rich whenever we manage to get our hands on them. Good riddance.
Edit: Also, holy damn. I like Cleo but "human rights should be conditional" is just *not it*. That is the most dangerous slippery slope that a society can thread on. Once you start to set a precedent for removing rights, you can bet that every opportunity will be used to push this further. You can't just decide that a group you personally dislike is unworthy of rights, because I can fucking bet that there are a ton who'd be more than glad to remove Cleo's own if they had the chance. You can't take such arbitrary measures willy-nilly.
Agree with that System part. I still think we need a death penalty, but there should be a few years of jail time to keep investigating.
Shut th fIlp up the man was filmed stabbing children he deserve far worse than a quick guiIIiotine trip
@@ommsterlitz1805 I mean yeah. Obviously that guy is a disgrace that needs to be kept away from everyone else from the rest of his life. It doesn't mean that the death penalty should be authorised at large, no matter what you feel he deserves.
It's important to realise. What someone "deserves" is so ridiculously subjective that you cannot possibly base a justice system on the idea. There are people who think people should be executed for masturbating. Aren't their perspective just as valid as yours as human beings?
@@leirbag1595 Actually the masturbation point further reinforces an idea lightly touched on in the video: the death penalty benefits you only as long as you completely agree with the government regarding who deserves it. Any deviation puts serious mistrust in government, and that's the last thing you need in a democracy.
Hold on WHAT
"Human rights should be conditional."
Bowl's sudden aggressive flirtatiousness at the end really caught me off guard, lol
But hell yeah, public executions! We can STREAM them now so even MORE people can see them.
It’s a reference.
@@themanageriguess ah. Pity it flew right over my head. I thought he was just being Bowl.
It's called Liveleak I think
@@themanageriguess o I just thought it was his before mentioned highness showing
To give my 2 cents, it's been shown that serial criminals commit crimes accepting full well to get the death penalty, so long as it means they can commit all kinds of atrocities. Is it really deterrence? It's more like a reward for these psychotic types. Think about it: they get news coverage, they get to become as famous as their idols (other classic serial criminals), and the death penalty allows them to escape from the social consequences of being an absolute monster.
Meanwhile life in prison forces them to face reality for the rest of their life. And if they are also say... kid diddlers, the other inmates never miss the opportunity to make them regret ever doing that. It's by far a greater punishment than death for these psychos. In fact the only ones who are afraid of the death penalty are people who don't intend on becoming criminals any time soon. They're the ones afraid of being framed and killed for it. The actual guilty party will just do it without care that they'll die.
I strongly agree with your point
For people who have commited the worst crime, you should give them the worst sentence, and if its obvious they were planning to die, then you can just give them life sentence. Death sentence is a harsh punishment, but not the worst in every situation
@@buycraft911miner2you can’t know if death or a life sentence is more preferable to a criminal, but the death penalty is going to get more innocent people murdered then provide rightful punishment
“My ancestors smile upon me, can you say the same?”
Tbh thats why we should change the death penalty to human experimentation, because unless you done some awful and vile things, you aint getting that easily, and it would still benefit society in some way, and lets all be honest, who cares about the human rights of a m guy who kill3d 10 children simply because he felt like it?
6:10 Okay, how did he write that all down and still stay optimistic about your life getting back together?
The idea is basically that a slim chance is better than no chance at all.
It's because he is wrong
@@LuzikArbuzik77 "I'm right, you're wrong, end of argument"
no seriously, he's wrong about what? wrong about being optimistic? even after naming every possible bad thing that could happen to someone after coming out of prison, even he seems to be optimistic for the future. and saying that all of this happens every single time someone comes out of a prison is just... stupid. so seriously, what is he wrong about? his opinion?
@@basicallyjustagamer7115 ok, I will say more. He is wrong in being optimistic because most of the time the good ending won't happen, considering things he himself listed, and hoping for it is just mostly doomed to fail.
I am not saying every single of the listed things happen every time. I'm saying that at least one of these things will happen, and it will be enough to destroy someone's life.
@@LuzikArbuzik77 But I'd rather flip a coin and get unlucky then to never have a chance at all
The DLC case for Apollo Justice trilogy looks good
The problem is that 1. false judgements can't be reversed, it's final, and 2. it's typically the same cost as far as I know, so the state doesn't safe money. There are exceptional cases where it you could justify execution, like mass murderers, but the problem with doing so that any uncertainty in the judgement is too much, and finding a system that secures that only the truly guilty die is impossible. Any innocent execution is too much, so execution shouldn't be legal.
This guy clearly never went through an phase where they searched for prison sentences (jk)
I would add that, in the case of The USA, systematic racism is also heavily involved in the juridical system, so black people's or others minorities WILL be very much more in danger than the average everyman.
In my opinion, life in prison is essentially comparable to torture, as the prison system cares more about gaining more prisoners than actually caring for them on average. Though this is regarding the judgment process, not exactly what happens after. In either case it seems we need to take into account human flaws, as no matter how great of a job we do, something will be a mistake or a deliberate attempt to claim someone guilty who was innocent. Where they end up will vary in many different ways, though to be separated from society in any capacity is likely to need help readjusting after. It just boils down to: Either way, you're screwed; but maybe you'll be free in 5-40 years when they decide to review your court case, or die a slow and lonely death in questionable living conditions. The upside is that you weren't killed immediately, so you have the rest of your life to lament.
@@kasumihimura You're talking about the US prison system. For example, German or Norwegian Prisons treat the prisoners with dignity (most of the time) and try to make sure that the prisoners can become part of civilized society again and doesn't become a hardened criminal due to the harsh circumstances. Prisoners that behave reasonably even have psychologists to talk to and choices about what they want to do with their free time.
@@JonathanMandrake W
Such a complex topic.....
As much as I wish those people who kill other people suffer, i don't wish innocent people be involved in traps and false accusations that would lead them to their demise.
FC keeps missing the point in an uncharacteristic way here.
with the one where gringo brings up the point of the death penalty executing innocent people, FC then expands it to the point where "being locked up could ruin an innocent person's life so we shouldn't do it"
but it's fallacious, it's a false equivalency. The courts and justice systems have ways to appeal out of jail, parole, early dismissals, ect. and once you're out, there's therapists, non-profits to help you get back on your feet, support groups, ect.
The justice system does not have necromancers. There is not even the possibility for recovery after an innocent person is executed.
it's the difference between somewhat reversible harm, and completely irreversible harm.
also, it's important to note that, like is currently happening in florida, having a death penalty opens the doors to an easier legal framework for genocide.
Florida made sex crimes against minors punishable by death, and made it so the death penalty decision doesn't have to be unanimous.
Now that sounds good perhaps (to people who support the death penalty), but the main issue is that they're also, simultaneously turning wearing drag around children (their definition of "drag" is loose enough to include "transwoman in a dress") as a sex crime. Same with supporting your trans child, or offering trans-affirming medical care.
A death penalty not only opens a massive margin for error, but just the fact that it's not federally or constitutionally prohibited allows for easier structural abuse.
for example: By this same vein they could pass an "anti terrorism" law that makes it so acts of property vandalism, as long as they can be classified as "terrorism" can be punishable by death.
then expand the definition of "terrorism" to include actions by environmental rights groups (say the infamous "soup painting" or the civil disobedience at pipelines)
all of a sudden, they have legal recourse to execute people for protesting.
in conclusion, the rebuttal made is invalid, as it is a false equivalency, and as a whole the death penalty is far too flawed and allows much too easily for legal abuse.
Again, the fault of biases in terms to what is considered a crime doesn't seem to be exclusive to the death penalty, again, just change the sex assault punishment with permanent jail time and you get the same issue.
@@GamerTowerDX yes, but at least when the biases are changed (if they can be) you can campaign to get people out of jail. there is SOMETHING to salvage.
if you simply execute everyone in the jail, there's nothing left to save at any more enlightened stage.
and even if, by some miracle, you were correct in your assessment, that doesn't change the fact that an innocent person, who, again, through an appeal or introduction of later evidence could go free, cannot be brought back from the dead.
your argument is invalid because it ignores reality and basic common sense.
you ignore the idea that perhaps time could.... change things?
in addition, on a state level, the allowance of the death penalty for such things means that, if there ever is federal action on the issue, it would most likely be too late. By the time the bill is passed, those people are already dead, you cannot release corpses.
As I said before, there is a difference between harm with a chance for redemption, and harm without any chance of it.
Life in jail is a sentence that can be repealed, appealed, paroled out, ect. ect. ect. and EVEN if all that fails there can be a cultural and political shift in the future that will save those people.
you cannot save corpses. to compare life in prison to execution is the mark of a person who has a proper grasp of neither concept within the justice system. (and possibly an improper grasp of time itself)
your argument (and by extension his argument) would only work if we were to suspend the concept of cultural change, blatantly ignore every aspect of the legal system which has been designed SPECIFICALLY with this issue in mind, and additionally conflate life and death in a manner which makes both utterly meaningless.
it is a frame utterly divorced from reality.
If it can be abused then also life imprisonment can be abused in the same exact way
And even after death there is possibility for legal recourse (at a far bigger magnitude).
The equivalence sounds perfectly fair
@@hawoaliahmed6996 I have already outlined exactly why you are wrong in another comment on this thread to a person with the exact same take as you.
in short, to allow your argument to be correct we must ignore many factors, but
to address your unique "point": you talk about "legal recourse".
with all due respect, this is not a conversation about appropriate legal recourse for those actions (the sentencing of an innocent person to death)
imprisoning someone innocent and having THEM seek legal recourse afterwards is not the same as killing an innocent person and having their FAMILY seek greater legal recourse afterwards. no matter the magnitude.
(I capitalized the difference here, to make it easier to understand. the difference is that a person is dead. there's no bringing them back. no amount of "greater legal recourse" can reanimate their corpse, or start them on the road to recovery. they are dead.)
On the concept of human rights. Isn't it commonly agreed upon that by infringing on another person's human rights, you void your own?
Agreed
The problem with the justice system is assuming criminals deserve a punishment. Instead of giving them a death sentence or even killing them, it's better to make prisons a place for recovery. This is exactly what Norway does, and guess what? "Only 20% of Norway's formerly incarcerated population commit another crime within two years of release."
This is much better than the US' near 50%. "According to the National Institute of Justice, almost 44 percent of the recently released return before the end of their first year out."
And also France's 60%. "80,000 people are released from prison each year in France, 80% of whom receive no support. Of these 80%, 59% return to prison within 5 years, and 31% within a year of release."
And Germany's 50% "48% reconvicted and 35% reimprisoned within 3 years in Germany"
You get the idea, criminals are usually people who are mentally unwell, and Norway's justice system recognises that by making prison basically a long therapy session
I found myself agreeing with Critical Orgasm, Mafalda, and Gringo this time around.
Also, if Faux would rather die than serve a life sentence, couldn’t he just be given a knife or poison so he could do the deed himself?
Same for the most part I agree. For the death penalty, I think that there should be a 3 year penalty in prison before death. That way, if you are innocent you are less likely to die. In the meantime, there will be some innocents caught in the crossfire however, they will get caught up in it either way because of crime.
Exactly. And death should be a right, never an obligation, and never forbidden. If someone wants to die, as long as they do so in a way that does not cause direct harm to others, then they should have that possibility. For someone like FC who'd rather die than go to prison, then that'd be a possibility. Oh, and of course, family members being sad that their loved one would be gone is not a valid reason to forbid them to die.
@@orrorsaness5942 Death row lasts for about 19 years on average. This is done to make the innocent have ample planning time to get a retrial, and to make the guilty wish for death.
@@Kurotama_STR Suicide is bad, but here I kinda agree...
@@doodlesyoru2108 Even those 19 years are kinda cruel because most of the time, death row inmates are kept in solitary confinement, which leads to insanity.
It doesn’t make just “the guilty” wish for death, it makes the innocent wish for death as well. That’s just as bad as falsely executing an innocent person.
I feel like Faux Cares’s argument hinges too much on “I personally think prison is worse than death” which at most would argue for people with life sentences being able to opt into a death penalty if they wish.
Then again you could argue that the others' argument hinges too much on “I personally think death is worse than prison”
19:00 "Bowl's feelin romantical." Bowl never dissapoints in saying random shit 😂
Put plainly: I think that the death penalty should not be given to the state, because it allows a legal avenue for undesireables to be murdered. If the state is given the right to murder de jure, then those who wish to make it a de facto crime to... say, kiss the same gender, are at huge risk of being attacked for "being a pedo" at some inherent, magical, level. If the right to execution is given to the state, then the crimes that some officers of the law commit could be far more justly seen as simply a case of justice being brought into the hands of the witness, rather than a criminal engaging in a crime whilst under the mask of justice.
I'm American, FYI.
You're pretty much on point.
I think it's been so long that people have pretty much forgotten that this kind of slippery slope is what leads to genocides. Normalize one act of taking human rights away after the other, aimed at one group of undesirables after the other.
To add to this, any modern party intent on bringing back the death penalty is going to be appealing to a hardline sense of justice to bring it about, therby enabling authoritarian tools for authoritarian people. It's a matter of time before, if social trends push further and the relegalization or continued promotion of the death penalty forms not as climax but as the beginning of a social-poltical movement, that people that the orginal speakers thought not to murder would be murdered.
Also, Faux. I know you've had lectures about the French Revolution. Don't you think the death penalty allows for the terror to form?
Bowl. Don't you want to be as least French as possible? The French are known for their executions.
@@leirbag1595 you could say the exact same thing about imprisoning criminals.
And how it would lead to concentration camp for undesirable.
Genociding murderers doesn't sound as bad as you think it does.
@@hawoaliahmed6996 Alleged murderers.
Mostly actual murderers
"Buy the family a hamster with the same name and get over it"
That deadpan delivery gave me serious whiplash.
I'm a weirdo in that I disagree with the death penalty-out of pity for the executioner, who is constantly asked to kill people he doesn't know, and who could be innocent, in the name of the state. That would wear on anyone, and while I can't speak for modern executioners, medieval executioners were ostracised to the point they basically had to marry amongst themselves.
Plus, on some level it's less out of a desire for justice so much as brutal catharsis- and vengeance is a very untrustworthy emotion-I feel a lot of would-be tyrants act out of a misplaced sense of justice. I'd ask if they'd be willing to sign up as executioner themselves if they're so eager, but I'm afraid of who'd say yes.
I actually would rather serve a life sentence than die now. I'm still quite young so that imprisonment would last 70-80% of a healthy human lifespan for me. Especially so if I'm innocent and have a chance to get out. My life and sentience are very important to me which is why I refuse to consume alcohol to retain my clarity and usually sleep only as long as necessary for health.
I‘ll hit you up if magic ever becomes real and I find a reliable way to finally achieve true eternal youth (so never but I can still dream)
@@SeraphinSnecmelIt’s possible. There is massive research being done on it.
@@ASocialistTransGirl the reason I emphasised 'true' eternal youth is because one reached by science can, at least to our current knowledge, never be truly eternal. It could be interrupted by outside factors like accidents or gamma ray blasts and has no way to outlive the universe in the case it does end for one reason or another, like the hypothesis of the heat death of the universe. That‘s why I brought up magic since it would by definition be a nifty way to circumvent the pesky reality of physics and grant myself eternal youth.
@@SeraphinSnecmel aging can be stopped tho.
Honestly, I'm like in the middle when it comes to this. I believe in redemption, but if they can't be redeemed, at least a life sentence could prevent them from posing a threat. Also, just punishing someone without understanding their motives is uh... This doesn't have anything to do with my stance on the death penalty, but uh, I'd rather rehabilitation. Most people aren't just irredeemable monsters. I believe people should be at least understood before giving them the right punishment. Again, nothing to do with my stance on the death penalty. Sorry for the paragraph, lol-
Edit: If anyone wishes to offer their piece, this comment is open. This is simply my view on the matter.
I honestly believe that the punishment should be dependent on four things:
1) The crime's severity
2) The criminal/accused's reasoning for committing it
3) Who was negatively affected by it
4) The criminal/accused's financial situation
The more unjustifiable the answers/results for each of those points are, the harsher the punishment.
For example, someone who uses their financial situation to justify a genocide would still get a life sentence, while someone who stole medicine from a store for the same reason would instead be given the obligated task of community services.
Like that, everyone still gets a punishment without being unfair. Plus, community services help everyone involved and people can move on peacefully!
@@haruhitomaeda4802 Yes.
In my view the criminal could repent of his crime but justice has to be consumated for the innocent and their loves ones
One thing I don’t thing anyone has mentioned, is that most execution method’s have very high failure rate’s. (Someone correct me if I’m wrong) but something like 50% of exactions in the us go wrong, and cause unnecessary pain to the victim before death
@@haruhitomaeda4802 three of your points is criminology garbage, and violates the concept that justice is blind, regardless of a person's financial or social status, sentences should be equal whether you're a billionaire or a bum
I've always thought that death should always be a choice for people who are condemned to a prison sentence, at least if they go for a certain arbitrary minimum duration. That way, you reduce the moral issue, since it's their choice to die or to just stay in jail.
Y'know what, this sounds like the most viable way to legalize death penalty.
The problem would be that a bunch of people that want to die but don’t can do it, would steal a thing, go to the prison, and ask the officers to die.
There's a decent argument why doing so is a pretty bad idea: If that were allowed, the prison system could be implemented so horrifically so as to bring the prisoners to ask to die instead of enduring the torture. Not only that, but they'd have an incentive to fake the consent of prisoners so that they can spare more money. It simply gives too much room for abuse, no amount of regulation can prevent that.
@@jfbsp1893Why not just throw themselves from a window? They can even drunk a liter of whisky to avoid feeling pain
If only the point Critical Orgasm brought up around 17:45 were discussed. Aside from the risks that, in essence, the whole society becomes murderers if an innocent person is executed, as stated in the video, we must also consider that Scandinavian countries have had a lot of success with rehabilitation, which has been shown to reduce recidivism rates to a much greater extent than the U.S.A's system. As Critical Orgasm points out, the criminal system's function should be to, indeed, focus on giving people a second chance (through rehabilitation or mere therapy, depending on the way in which someone is wrong in the head), rather than to have this obsession with revenge and punishment which, to the surprise of virtually no one, accomplishes nothing useful. Although perhaps that warrants a different discussion on the criminal system itself.
Sure, perhaps the family of the victim gains some closure because the perpetrator of the crime is dead, and while I think it ridiculous to sacrifice a person's life for mere closure, let's suppose that there is nothing wrong with that. *The person who died does not magically come back because of the perpetrator's death.* Not only is the victim still dead, now another life has been wasted, and the closure that the victim's family gets is good, until they realise that it accomplishes nothing since the victim is dead and no amount of revenge shall fix that. At the very least keeping the person alive and attempting rehabilitation might ensure that less lives are lost overall, and in the best case scenario the perpetrator could after a long time come to terms with the victim's relatives and friends. But no, revenge must be the best thing, right?
It is not as if the argument that it is a deterrent works, either, as I pointed out earlier in this comment through the comparison between Scandinavian countries and the U.S.A. Besides that, anyone who commits a crime such as murder is not right in the head to begin with, for if they were then they would not commit the crime. They may be so far gone that they do not care about the consequences and thus commit the crime anyways; they may get away with it; or they may even increase their crimes because they will be put to death regardless, which admittedly is just an extension of the first scenario. The first and last reasons especially matter because without the death penalty, they do not exist. Less reason to commit crime = good. Even if criminals are aware of what they are doing, if they were mentally sound they would not do it. Therefore, rehabilitation is a good way to attempt to eliminate the psychological aspect.
Keep in mind that the message this sends to a society's citizens, at least over time, is essentially that, depending on the crimes you commit, there is absolutely nothing you can do to make this right, and you must be executed for being a being consisting of pure evil.
Which sounds... interesting, considering the fact that people, even criminals, are able to change for the better. These are real humans we are talking about, not Jekyll & Hyde. As pointed out by Gringo in the video, people all have some good to them, no matter how small, which is not explored as far as possible by killing them just so that some others can have closure.
I have scoured this comment section for any comments I would deem "perfect"... and I have found it. very well put, I couldn't agree more.
I agree with most of this, but some people cannot be redeemed or do not deserve redemption.
@@requiemlul3140maybe, but judging that is impossible, so it’s better to play it safe.
@@requiemlul3140 again, though, what do you actually accomplish by simply killing those who deserve it, assuming that you for sure have the right guy, apart from closure for the victim's families and potential deterrence (the latter being less efficient than other methods, such as rehabilitation)?
@@soren1803
Not isn’t. Mass murderers and serial killers don’t feel remorse/are too volatile to be kept alive. Otherwise they wouldn’t do it.
I have a few details to had about the crime deterrence of death penalty.
I recall a study saying that the number of crimes in the US are higher in states with the death penalty than in states without. Of course, it doesn't necessarily means that the death penalty encourage crimes or anything of the sort, but it does put a dent in the idea that it prevent's them. I believe the reason for these data is that states withe the death penalty tend to be more reactionary in their application of the law. They arrest people for small crimes that would only be worth a fine in other states and their prison systems are usually more focused on punishment than reformation.
Regarding public executions, they actually used to favor crime. In Victorian London, thieves would take advantage of the crowds gathered in such events to pick-pocket people discretely while crime lords (some of whom were police officers or judiciary officials) exploited the sentence to get rid of rivals and strengthen their hold on the criminal underworld.
Finally, I would like to point out a specific point mentioned in the video. It is stated that the number of death penalties has been in decline for some time now, making it more and more unlikely that innocents will be executed. That may be the case, but who's to say that trend will continue? A surge of criminal violence, a change of government or a national/global paranoia similar to the red scare could all lead to an increase of death penalties. The world and general mentalities are ever-changing wish makes it difficult to predict how things will evolve. Food for thoughts.
People often see the justice system only as punitive, but often forget that it is also rehabilitative. The death Penalty removes its ability to rehabilitate.
I am French as well, and I have very strong opinions against the Death Penalty. If you want to know how we abolished it, I recommend you read into Robert Badinter's work and legacy. That man, a lawyer, was a hero who fought tooth and nail against the Death Penalty. One single page from his book holds more water than the entirety of the arguments presented in this video.
@Kevin Grau Absolutely. It's one thing to debate on the Internet, but to fight against something that you are confronted with every day of your life... That's something else.
Rehabilitation should be the primary goal, I agree. But unfortunately some people cannot be helped or rehabilitated. I wouldn't say it's because they're evil, but because they are sick, and we simply don't have the correct treatment at the time.
Unfortunately, if they are alive they can negatively affect others, and so just like with plague victims, unfortunately sometimes the only safe way to deal with them is to put them down.
Maybe someday we'll be able to fix depraved criminals, but our technology isn't that advanced yet.
@@anubis7457 Even if someone cannot be rehabilitated, what good is actually achieved by killing them? Contrary to belief, it's not actually cheaper. It's not dissuasive either. To avenge the victims? But when you ask the families of victims, usually they do not seek revenge. They want to understand why it happened, and how a mind got so twisted as to cause this much suffering. By killing off the culprit, you remove any kind of possibility to learn how criminal minds are formed.
@@albevanhanoy It’s not about avenging anything, but about the safety of others.
A serial killer cannot get more victims when they’re dead, but they can certainly attack and kill the other prisoners around them. The only alternative to prevent this is permanent solitary confinement, which is exceptionally cruel.
@Anubis So the Death Penalty is about... Ensuring the safety of prisoners from someone who would otherwise be another prisoner? That's a stretch.
Everything about the death penalty is flawed ESPECIALLY in the US. #1. The most common method of death used in the US is lethal injection, and due to the for profit systems in place, they often don't use strong enough doses to actually kill people so you have instances where a person survives having their heart set on fire (hyperbole), feeling the worst pain someone can feel besides actually being set on fire. Then you have to do it again because there's no legal recourse for WHEN they mess up. So, if you've got the death penalty and the state fucks up, you just have to take it (ALSO, doctors aren't allowed to perform lethal injection 'cause Hippocratic Oath so they have untrained prison personnel perform it). #2. You would be surprised (or not surprised if you keep up with US news) at how unbelievably often people in the states get wrongfully convicted due to the abysmal police system prioritizing arrests over following procedure and being human frickin' beings. A good chunk of these arrests are actually illegal, the cops obfuscate and lie to get you to allow them to break procedure, there is a HUGE racial profiling problem, and there's almost no way to get your sentence overturned if you were arrested and find proof you were actually innocent and that's IF you can get a lawyer to help you.
I was gonna write more but my wrist is starting to hurt and I don't know if I'll be able to properly argue my stance without screwing up if I type it all out in a huge paragraph like this. I'll probably come back to it later...
Life-long imprisonment being worse than the death penalty to some people isn‘t a point in favour of the death penalty, it‘s just a symptom of a backwards approach to jails and criminal punishment in general. Most crimes don‘t happen because people aren‘t deterred enough by the consequences, but as a result of the offender’s upbringing and social circles.
If you, say, live in a poor neighbourhood with high crime rates and grow up to commit crimes yourself, it‘s not just because there‘s more incentive to do crime if you‘re poor. It is also a result of, among other things, being brought up by parents or one parent who most likely don‘t have many reason to preach the law to you as it failed to help them and will likely fail to help you get out of poverty, interacting with similar people all throughout your formative years, probably experiencing trauma you will never have the capabilities to treat and all around being desensitised to crime as a child.
To focus the justice system on the punishment of criminals, even if their reasons are not being failed by society, does nothing but sate the longing of retribution of a few. It does nothing to prevent the actual causes, it doesn‘t contribute anything to society at large (as opposed to rehabilitating people, if possible). And the call for the death penalty is nothing if not a giant focus on punishment, where there should be focus on prevention, rehabilitation and treatment. You might not like it if someone kills a child and gets to live, but giving the punitive authority tho the state to decide if someone dies should definitely not rest on what people emotionally feel about a crime as an immediate reaction. And in my opinion the only actual argument for a death penalty is one of emotion, one that longs for some felt justice through ultimate retribution.
Would someone who would assault a child stop to think "oh no, this could get me killed. I should stop" or conversely "I am going to assault this child, I‘m only going to be imprisoned anyways."? I don’t really believe so. If they were in a state of mind to consider the consequences of their actions or felt they had reasons to consider them at all, they either wouldn’t have committed them, or, had they committed them regardless, they are most likely someone undeterred by consequences in general. People who commit things they are aware of as being generally seen as wrong also don‘t plan to get caught.
I am aware that deterrence does seem to work for many, but what I’m trying to say with this is that it is in my opinion a reasonable assumption to think those on whom the deterrence works would generally adhere to social norms even without deterrence due to being properly integrated into their society and/or being instilled with the corresponding moral values and empathy during their upbringing as well as living a good-enough life. This is why I find the argument of deterrence in general and especially in the way it was used in the video completely lacking in any nuance as just a "if you could potentially get killed when you do [x] you wouldn’t do [x]", questionable at best
On another note, I find it rather peculiar that Bowl doesn’t consider a murderer or child molester as human as himself, when they are just as you a product of their circumstances. Bowl particularly stated they shouldn’t have human rights as they should not be considered human, but the thing about humans is that they’re a very social species. The reason we are far more advanced in many fields of study than, say, 20.000 years ago, is after all not because changed significantly on a biological level, but because we educate our young and preserve acquired knowledge over generations. The reason Bowl isn‘t a murderer while another British man stabbed a guy to dwath despite theoretically having more or less the same mental faculties isn’t because the Bowl as an individual is somehow fundamentally superior to the other person, but because Bowl has had the luck to be born into circumstances within the current system where he could grow up to be a somewhat functional individual. It is not by his own merit that Bowl has some basic morals irl (I assume he does), but by the merit of his parents, friends, teachers and so on. This is why I find that particular argument somewhat shallow as it places blame on an individual where the blame should be on the society that created them. I‘m not saying it excuses what these people do but for the stated reasons I believe killing them doesn‘t really solve anything either.
I do apologise for my comment being a bit lengthy when its points could be articulated much more precisely and with fewer words but I‘m writing it at a later hour than I probably should and my English gets a bit diffuse at night.
Anyways thanks for another good video, usually I find myself agreeing with you more than Gringo but I suppose differing opinions are the points of discussions after all.
tl;dr I don‘t like the death penalty and especially not calling for it in response to cases like the one in France because in my opinion it really doesn’t do anything to address the underlying issues at all and only serves to make you feel better by having retributive justice while distracting from actual long-term solutions.
[Edit: formatting for better readability, missing apostrophes, faulty mental autocompletion of words and sentences]
Society would be much better if people just did not commit crimes. Society would be much better if evil people did not exist. H'mm yes I am a genius.
I see no reason why we shouldn't deal with the real causes of violent crimes and also have a proper punishment for the most henious crimes, something that is equivalent to the crime comitted, those two things should not be mutually exclusive.
You say the issuing the death penalty doesn't solve core the issues that cause people to commit atrocities, but in the case of that man from France, I'm not necessarily sure there is a better option.
The way I see it some one willing to do that while also being aware of the consequences but still preceeded to commit the act isn't something a government or outside force could realistically prevent with out doing something drastically over the too like taking away the right to own knives, or knowing he'd fo it before hand and restraining him for an inefficient amount of time.
While the death penalty may not prevent others from doing horrid things, it is certain
To stop that man from committing harm against another person.
I do think people can change and should be given the opportunity to do so but this can only go so far.
If someone commits a comically evil act for no reason and demonstrates no remorse or intentions of correcting this in the future.
Literally, what good does it do to keep them alive?
At that point, they're no more than a hazard to everyone around and an overall nuisance. The world would be a safer place if they weren't around, and as such, the death penalty is simply the most logical solution.
You're all missing an important point. If a person kills someone and knows that they'll be dead if found, they'll kill more people to protect themselves from the consequences of their actions, if the sentence is lesser however, they might not consider it as much as if the oposite were true.
Nobody is missing a point. You are. Execution would be for unpardonable, heinous crimes, like child murder, mass murder. It would be for when we know the person doing it isn't something worth saving. Also, it's way more likely that he will be afraid to kill the person in the first place before that.
Guy who wasn't sentenced to death could also kill an innocent guy in prison, which would be incredibely funny if not tragic. We could avoid a spill of blood of decent, redeemable people by killing the worst too.
@@Adam-326 Do you want martial law? Because that's how you get martial law. Best case scenario, you get a militarized police state. Worst case scenario, you get North Korea.
@@Adam-326 nobody wants the death penalty to be an effective deterrent, and it never will be either. that's like having an axe on your head at all times, letting you know that if you so much as sneeze on the wrong politician's coat, you'll be killed. every citizen would live in fear of it's overlords, and any who don't get killed, or eventually overthrow the government. but if you really do want this, then truly, I suggest moving to north korea. sounds like you'd love it.
@@Adam-326you just wanna be stepped on by burly authoritarians. Keep your kinks away from the rest of us.
I understand that some crimes are irredeemable and that some people really do deserve to die, but I can't get behind the death penalty at all. I think it's absurd how supporting the death penalty was framed as the "right" opinion in this video because somehow life in prison is worse.
There are a lot of points that I believe weren't appropriately addressed in this video, namely how nobody should be able to decide if a person deserves to die, I don't think there are any people in the world who could be trusted for such a decision. A person's life is just too valuable to be taken away on the whim of any group of people, even if every single person in the world thinks a person should die, why does the person have to die? A person's life is their own, and shouldn't be in the hands of anybody, not the government, not a jury, and not any other group of people.
Additionally, killing an innocent person is so much worse than not killing a person who deserves it, like an infinite amount of times worse. Life in prison sucks, it's awful, but dying is worse, it just is. If a person is innocent they can be released from jail, and no matter when they are released and no matter how tough it is to come back to society, it's better than being killed for a crime you didn't commit. If the person prefers death then I think they should be able to commit suicide, of course, such a system could be abused but I think if created properly it would be significantly better than killing people.
There's just not really a reason for the death penalty even in this video, if life in prison is so bad that you would rather die then doesn't it make sense to put horrible criminals in prison for their lives? If you prefer to die than serve out your sentence then doesn't it mean it's a better deterrent to crime since it's more of a punishment? Life in prison bounces back and forth from being too lenient to being too harsh in this video.
Overall, I don't really like this video and I think it's one of the weaker videos on this channel, where it never really feels like a real conversation is taking place.
On the judgement: is quite simple; people who forfeited their right to life like mass murderers.
Nobody should decide whether or not someone should end up in prison either. People have the right to murder a small infant child and get away with it.
@@Graypalks The statement that nobody should be able to decide whether a person lives or dies is my personal sentiment, and if you're comfortable with the idea of a group of people having the power to legally kill you, even if you’re innocent, then feel free to disagree with that statement. I on the other hand am not comfortable with that idea, I think it's much more dangerous than the power to put people in jail, partly because you can take people out of jail, and partly because it doesn't violate the most fundamental of natural rights. I believe there are things a person can do to forfeit their right to life, but I don't believe a group of people, like you and me, can decide on whether or not a person truly does not deserve to live anymore. Imprisoning people still requires a decision from ordinary people, but it's necessary to maintain public order, while the death penalty isn't. Even if you don't think there's any meaningful difference between taking a person's liberty and a person's life, that doesn't automatically make the death penalty better or good.
@@kostyat.2093 But people should have the right to kill children do you not agree?
@@kostyat.2093 Also children don't have a right to life so don't claim all people do.
I think it's kinda sad that the argument never touched what possible checks could prevent or reduce the chances of an innocent being subjected to it. Things like only video evidence, heinous crimes etc, we already got some fairly elaborate ones but there's always room for improvement. Also judges should be more liable to their decisions, they get a lot of weight and immunity to push around but not enough responsibility to balance it.
Gringo: "You can't replace a person with a pet!"
Bowl: "Yuh uh"
Then just replace the person with another person!
I heard human trafficking is becoming more and more common nowadays.
@@LaCabraAsada It's a profitable business. I think I'll try to get in the human market by selling newborns as investments for the future.
@@LaCabraAsada This actually sounds like something bowl would say.
@@limmortale2001 Have you signed up yet and where can I as well I heard its a good investment
@@MostlyJustWhipGaming I'm saving enough money to invest in the bangladeshi/chinese textile market.
i feel like most of the crew here forgot that Bowl is an agent of chaos, and actually take his rambling seriously
The death penalty should be illegal, but only because there will always be a chance of false conviction. There are absolutely people that society would benefit with the removal of, but it’s never worth the death of an innocent
Seconding this opinion.
People are involved in it.
People make mistakes.
Accepting the death penality means accepting some innocent people are going to be put to death.
Not worth it.
The death penalty takes so long in the modern age to convict and fail the appeal appeal. I don't trust the innocent would be charged
When people speak in a way that implies that they are inherently better than other people, it sets off something deep within me. The gall. All men are capable of wretched acts. There are not "good people" and "bad people", there are simply people.
I don't really have a stance about the death penalty but it rubs me the wrong way to see anybody talking about other people's lives so flippantly. Bowl is a troll, sure, but FC and Cleo did not seem to be so sarcastic and that kind of snobbery leaves a bitter taste in the mouth.
Agreed.
Also, not to say I'm anti-punishment- like how FC and Bowl seem to think Gringo's arguments are in favor of even when they're clearly not-but human dignity should be held as a matter of practical principle, if not moral, just got the fact that even if people only think it's punishing the victim, in a big picture sense just fuels a system that maintains a status quo that just makes more criminals.
an acquired taste, I like their sobness
And people who are tryhards trying to look superwholesome with “We are all just people” or “me have no enemies” or “muh sanctity of muh life” don’t so much set me off, just cause me to guffaw.
I’ll take snobbery and flippant pragmatism over moralists any day of the week.
If somebody kills an innocent person, then yeah, i do believe i (and all non-child killers) am inherently a better person than they are. While all are capable of evil, those that choose to commit said acts should suffer absolutely. Whether it be life in prison, death, or even torture, a murderer has taken someone elses life, and in doing so should suffer for the rest of their lives in return.
Yeah, fuck all these bleeding heart moralists who don't conflate narrow-minded cynicism with actual emotional maturity and basic comprehension of long-term systematic consequences.
I'm with CO, mafalda and (I can't believe I'm going to say this) gringo on this one
Their logic was more sound, sometimes based on studies and history, while the team on favor of the death penalty didn't give much reason to do it, other than saving tax money and that it is better than a life sentence
The second one is funny to me, because no one talked about the possibility of banning life sentences.
Namely, in Spain, both life sentences and death penalties are illegal, with the maximum sentence being 25 years.
That means that, if you commit a horrible crime in your 20s, and reform in prison, you could be released for good behavior in your late 30s early 40s, with plenty of time to get back on your feet
And if you do it at your 40s, you would get out either at the retirement age, or close to, which would entitle you to a minimum pension from the government once reached, and we have a special pension for people over 55 without a job and in need, so there's that too
What I wanted to illustrate is how, in a system built around the idea of prisons as rehabilitation rather than vindictive punishments, that little chance CO talked about it's not so little
Sure, the social aspects would still be a hard, I'm not denying that, but the chance is far bigger than in countries with life sentences, and infinitely bigger than in countries with the death penalty
in a life sentence you have around half your life to be proven innocent before it stops being worth it. if you're dead you're dead. you don't have 40 years to potentially be revived when you're proven innocent.
Sure if you aren't proven innocent for like 70 years it is a rather useless gesture, but what about 10 years? 5 years? you still have a life ahead of you in that case.
The fact that so many people keep committing crimes because they either think they won't get caught or they find that the potential rewards outweigh the risk of punishment strongly suggest that a purely punitive justice system is inherently flawed.
Fuck cared said really wisely that we don't care if the guilty guy like his sentence.
Why in the world his whole argument stands on "I prefer death"? It's contradictory.
Personally, I think neither death penalty or life sentence are great. We should re-educate people, not mess them up more than they already are.
Oh, and death penalty costs a LOT of money Cleo.
It's incredible to me how Bowl can be the personification of chaos, say a coherent thing out of nowhere, and return to burn the entire world.
7:17 tbh Volkeh wasn't human in the first place...
i’ve not watched the video completely, but I think the issue is not the death penalty itself, but prisons and how we treat criminals. This may sound cliche, and it probably isn’t flawless, but a prisons goal shouldn’t be to keep the good people safe and the bad people locked inside, It should be about making the bad people good again. If you think about it, prison doesn’t teach you discipline, it teaches you punishment, and you’re more likely to be resentful about it. Imagine an innocent man being falsely put in jail. He’s more likely to feel resentful and relieved when the sentence is over, and since when you’re out of jail, you likely have no where to call home, more likely to turn to crime. Prison, and how it treats criminals itself is flawed. Prison should be a place to teach discipline. Some people who turn to crime are poor and are in need of help. Maybe giving them a well-polished place, and after relieving their sentence maybe giving them like a month or two a home to stay in, some shelter you know? So they don’t immediately go back to crime, and instead have the time to get a job. Basically, prison shouldn’t punish the criminals, it should discipline them.
One of your main points in this argument is why I think we should keep the death sentence illegal. Being locked up against your will for the rest of your life. Death sentence is the easy way out. Instead of being punished of the crime (and actually feeling punished) by being locked in a jail cell for the rest of your life, you just get killed and avoid all that. Why do school shooters kill themselves? Perhaps the main reason is embarassment after seeing what they've done but you can't deny part of that is that they're going to face punishment for their crimes. If heavy criminals knew that they wouldn't have to stay in a jail cell for the rest of their life, they'd have even less restraint on comitting the action. The psychos that would be unaffected by this are not as many as those that would.
I'll quote what you tell every guard in Solitude: "I'd rather die than go to prison."
Additionally, the points FOR keeping the death sentence illegal are sound. Innocent people have been killed. The innoncence of some people has been proved after they've been jailed and they have the potential of getting a second life, no matter how hard it is.
The among us kill scare sound as his head falls off? I haven't laughed that genuinely in weeks!
Like the philosopher once told, " i agree to relinquish my right to maintain death penalty, but only ask the murderers to do the same first".
Or something like that. You get the idea.
Also, a jurist (i forgot which one) once theorised that all sentences iriginate from the death penalty, as it was the worse which could be given. As such, a judiciary shstem without it is no more coherent and able to judge effectuvly the gravity of crimes.
So we need to keept the death penalty, at least as a symbolic penalty for the categorisation of charges and their punishment.
an interesting idea... having the death penalty be around, but just be extremely unlikely to happen could be nice actually, as something to set the bar. serial killers, terrorists, and other such criminals could be given this sentence to set the baseline, but only after everything has been proven without a shadow of a doubt. making the death penalty something a common citizen with a rational mind can achieve would destroy this purpose though, as it's no longer setting the bar for a worst possible punishment, but rather something that could be used against you as a means to stoke fear, or a means of control.
The problem with that is quite simple: For most terrorists, mass murderers a d generally criminals of that scale, the death penalty isn't really all that bad, they see it either as the price for doing what they truly want to do and simply accept it, or they see it as a tyrannical punishments, thinking themself a martyr. For the first one, the death penalty is not all that much different to life in prison, and for the second, dying will give them the vindication that they were right, at least they think so.
"holding people somewhere against their will is a violation to human rights... Unless there is a "legal justification to do it"
FC you are SO close to understanding the problem with the justice system
Honestly, make it legal, but the criminal has to meet a certain criteria. Something along the lines of like:
A medium to large Mass murder (small one would probably be like 12 - 20ish years)
Being in the FBI's most wanted
An active danger to society, when a mental hospital doesn't work
And other very serious crimes.
Some crimes shouldn't warrant it, like robbery, assault and battery, and bribery.
That's just how I view it.
Edit: Not everyone agrees with what should be on the death penalty list. We can see it clearly in the replies below and in other comments. This isn't shaming, but it is important to know.
Another thing I'd like to bring up is repeated offenses. When it is clear that the criminal will not stop doing crimes, it may be acceptable to do the death penalty. But before that, those people should be put on life in jail. If they try to escape, or are attacking other prisoners or guards, then they should be put on for the death penalty.
I get bribery not being one, but I disagree on robbery or assault and battery being exempt.
@@lilacpen8678 why? the law is fundamentally laid out so that the punishment a criminal is faced with is less severe than whatever crime they may have comitted, with a few little bonusses here or there of course. you commit robbery? well, you need to give back all that you stole, and sit in prison a few years. assault and battery? pay for any medical bills and therapy that the person needs, plus extra in damages, and sit in prison for a few years. I can't think of a single situation where a person can ONLY be sharged with either of these crimes, or both even, and still deserve the death penalty.
Something I'd like to add is that in the US, the people on death row usually sit there for upwards of 30 years, while granted it's no life sentence, it's still a lot of time to re-evaluate the verdict of the criminal.
Let me propose an alternative to death penalty, forced excercise bike generator usage, making them turn into energy providers. Either that or they get no food. This would help a bit with the energy crisis.
Yes, great idea
Why does this channel not have 1m+ subscribers yet?? It’s peak content.
lack of voice acting
@@sasir2013 true, most people are lazy af
Only if we got the person who committed the crime every single time, which cannot happen, so no lol
Also, in every world that we can actually capture the criminal 100%, that means we are in a dystopia where the main effector is the government itself because 100% capturing of those who actually committed heinous crimes means overwhelming surveillance or mind-reading or mass manipulation of human behavior, all of which point to a callous government.
Bowl: I don't want bloodshed.
Also Bowl: kill him. His dog too. Maybe his family, if they want this. Replace the dead people with animals.
You missed the solution : make prisons better, so that you haven't lost everything once you get out, and you'd rather be in prison than die. You may think that's going easy on criminals, but i'd rather go easy on criminals than hurt the innocent, and there will always be innocents in prison. Indeed, i'm of the mind that the goal of justice and prison shouldn't be to punish criminal, but protect the innocent, even at the cost of being merciful on criminals.
Besides, even if the goal was punishment and the criminal was guilty, their punishment is supposed to be over once they get out of prison. They should be able to resume their life without struggle.
And as far as i know, the death penalty actually costs more than life sentence, due to the many procudures in place to try and make sure the person is actually guilty (procedures that have nonetheless failed several times in the past).
Also, i don't think harsher punishment can deter criminals much. Criminals usually commit crimes either when they think they can get away with it, when they lost control due to emotions, or when they think they have no choice but to commit the crime; so they either think they can avoid consequences, are unable to think about the consequences, or have no choice but risk the consequences.
The exception is when the consequences are smaller than the benefits : if doing the crime rewards you more than the punishment, then you have no reason not to do it (aside from your conscience, of course). That's why the justice system can deter criminals but having overly rash punishments does not : once the punishment is greater than the benefits of the crime, only the criminals for which consequences have no meaning are still thinking about doing the crime.
This is probably too personal, but I know someone who had a cousin who killed both their parents, afterwards, the person I know felt like they’d rather not know their cousin at all, or even know they existed in the first place. That was _their_ feelings about it.
At the same time, I know this is a complicated subject, everyone is different in their reactions and what their feelings are on execution... but what will we do if the perpetrator will not change and will offend again? Even with help, you cannot force a person to change for the better, they have to do that themselves. Still better to give them a second chance at life, either way though, no matter which side you pick, you’re still going to fail someone.
One crime can be forgiven or forgotten, by the second they are either too volatile or purposely disregarding another persons rights, thereby forfeiting theirs in the manner they have disregarded.
9:18 Bowl only makes good sense when he’s high and you CANNOT convince me otherwise.
If we are talking about the perspective of the loved ones of the murderer it is only fair to talk about the perspective of the loved ones of the killed. And they wold almost definitely want the murderer to be executed.
Except for the many cases where the families of the victims specifically request that they don’t be killed, which is much more common than you think
@@misterjakester Wait they do?!
If some guy kidnaps and tortures me untill death I would want the perpetrator to be executed.
@@perimarc6008 there are many factors, first of all death row can take years, even decades, by the time the perpetrator would be killed you would have moved on long ago, it is worthless, 2nd of all, it costs a lot of money for executions, more then you would think, giving 3 pieces of bread a day is way more cost effective, 3rd, the ways people are killed are super cruel even today, th-cam.com/video/eirR4FHY2YY/w-d-xo.html I reccomend this video to go down the rabbit hole of just how barbaric stuff like lethal injections are.
@@teiull9388 What about life in the gulag? That is cost efficient.
@@perimarc6008 gulag is inhumane, a normal prison is alr cheaper then having executions happen every year
There is an object in the background of CO that really looks like a fridge...
Must be Nora.
I should be free to live in a country where capital punishment is not practiced. In a world where the legal system is routinely manipulated and mocked by those with power, I will not stand for those same people being able to not only escape the punishment with impunity, but to pursue the death penalty on anyone they don't like as well. Don't delude yourselves into thinking that the death penalty will have any effect on crime, because from statistics in the past we can draw that it will not have the desired effect on our society. And if you're just looking for blood at the end of the day, then God, or whatever you believe in, help you. The world is brutal yes, that doesn't mean we have to emulate it.
9:46 WHY IS BOWL THE ONE BRINGING THE MOST SOLID ARGUMENT IN THIS VIDEO?
THE MOST UNHINGED PERSON IS BRINGING THE POINT I AGREE WITH THE MOST WTF
Anyone who is wholesale against the death penalty is therefore saying that there is no crime that could ever warrent it and that just isn't true.
There absolutely should be a death penalty, but it's of the utmost importance that what crimes it could be given for should be detailed and well defined.
Stabing children should absolutely be on that list of crimes.
Well stabbing children is usually done out of impulse, so they should be free with a few therapy sessions a week
People who support death penalty only do so based on their feelings, fact is that rehabilitation and live sentences work much better
m.th-cam.com/video/l554kV12Wuo/w-d-xo.html
Death penalty and ”eye for an eye” thinking is backwards barbaric 4000 year old way of thinking and its Good to see people waking up from supporting it
"Theres not a single adult human in the world who doesnt know how twisted and disgusting it is to murder a child" didnt know that every adult human have killed a child in their lives in order to know that
I guess what decerns a hardened criminal versus someone innocent/being framed from dieing for no real reason?
i think this is the first baguette industries™️ debate that ive seen that isnt either dealing with annoying people or dealing with drunk people
Or dealing with annoying drunk people.
This topic doesn't have Harry... WHERE'S HARRY,
Uggh. The debate tends to taper off into a dead end when they start arguing the philosophical question of 'can a human being ever become 'deserving of death?'' rather than the way more useful question of 'is the death penalty as it exists a net positive for society?'
Cleo's 'human rights should be conditional' feels like one hell of a Harry-esque position.
Cleo argument at 15:55 that the families 'will find more closure if the criminal is put down' is kinda assuming *a lot*. That the families of murder/heinous crimes victims are this hivemind who universally agree that heinous criminals like that child murderer should be executed by the death penalty. That's not necessarily true. There's this international organization called Murder Victims’ Families for Human Rights (MVFHR) who in spite of their tragedies, oppose the death penalty. If we're giving the families of murder victims' perspective automatic moral legitimacy, then the dissenting voices shouldn't be excluded so lightly.
Off with their heads!
Fuck yea!!
About using execution as a crime deterrent - it's a terrible idea. I'll just provide an example. It most likely won't stop rapist from raping someone, but now there's a much bigger chance that victim will be killed. Perhaps it will stop some small robbers and etc. But like Bowl stated, there are some people who are just savages. Psychopaths, for example. No punishment will stop them from conducting a crime. They'll just become more merciless.
I think my argument would be that the death penalty can take too long. Someone can commit a crime in 2008 to be executed this year. Imagine what that would do to the victim's family or/and the perpetrator's family. Also, I find the concept of the perpetrator's families watching them get executed kinda cruel. I for one wouldn't want to watch my family member be killed in front of me. And if we are talking about child murderers if they get life imprisonment they will most likely die. I don't know if this applies to other countries but American prisons are not fond of child molesters and child murderers, the inmates will and try to kill them. I've even watched an interview where the inmate said "If you were sharing a cell with a child molester or a child murder and you don't kill them, the inmates will kill you."
"Just look at your step-father" 🔥🔥🔥
It should be legal but only if we use big fucking executioner blades to do it and sometimes we throw them into a gladiator ring where they have to fight for their freedom.
Based gladiator fights
I would be most curious about what method of the death penalty FC, Cleo, and Bowl would advocate for. I am against the death penalty in all cases, but I would have to go with firing squad. The guillotine is a close second, but the cultural stigma around it makes it unusable today.
The problems with punishments like these is literally the fact that solving one issue causes others
Execute killers? May be used by people in power to frame and kill who they want
Jail to all? Sometimes is not enough punishment
Such a complex problem that i cant really think of a good solution
FC and Cleo should get a room asap. There's too much flirt between those two
I think the biggest hole in this discussion is the massive assumptions you made about the nature of the justice system. Many of the negative things you associated with the experience of being in prison that were used to justify the position that being in prison is a fate subjectively worse than death are not inherent aspects of prison as a form of justice but rather flaws present in most current prison institutions. I would have liked to see where the arguments went after prison reform was added to the mix, and maybe a change of social stigmatization towards imprisonment. After all, why would you be embarrassed to be visited in prison assuming either way your loved ones know what you did to get yourself in there? Either you're in prison for something they don't mind, in which case why would they care you're in prison, or they do mind, in which case their disgust has nothing to do with where you're located at the time.
Im disappointed they hadnt mentioned the rights of the state (in-depth) to deprive of a person what it cannot return. Also, that the judicial system isnt or shouldn't be punitive, but preventative. There's no point in punishing crime because that doesnt benefit noncriminals. Punishment should only go to the degree to prevent crime. If you cannot be reformed, you should be given the life (or death) sentence for the safety of others
I know this is unrelated but how does the Omegaverse make you feel?
I think the question might be less “Is the death penalty alright?” and more “Are the justice system and those who partake in it prepared to deliver it?” Because taking a life is something that is out and out irreversible, but I wouldn’t doubt that there are criminals who are incapable of change. Or worse, prone to feigning change. But there are also people who get framed for “death-worthy” crimes, and turning the administration of death into any sort of positive event is ultimately a bad thing. To take a life, regardless of whose, is an event born out of tragic necessity, and never a desire for catharsis or entertainment. People should die because they _need_ to die; not because people want them to die. But morality and legality often get so intertwined that people eventually come to believe that the legal system is something to take pleasure in. The gears within a clock don’t snicker when the clock’s hands just so happen to form a smile. They turn as though nothing happened because function and pleasure do not seamlessly mix. Death gets rid of threats that are proven to be unfixable and not entirely possible to restrain. The issue comes in when the justice system fails to properly assess when that is and is left with a severe consequence that cannot be altered or fixed.
Ultimately, I have no idea whether the death penalty works or not. I didn’t do a lot of research, most of what I know about the legal system comes from movies and TV shows, I have a tendency to take every internet statistic I see with a grain of salt, I _absolutely_ would never bet on humankind overall doing the right thing, and I have never served jury duty a day in my life. And I don’t plan to either. Personally, my gut would predict that the death penalty would kill more “undeserving” people than “deserving” people, but that isn’t exactly based on anything concrete. I just don’t think it’d be used as anything but a weapon, and life sentences are already pretty good weapons. I also think that death by legal system, for me at least, is worse than going to jail. I think that death is as much of a human right as life, and that all human beings that are deemed deserving of such rights should get the privileges of saying “Hey! I’ve decided that I’m going to die here. This point of my life? This is where *I* say it all ends.” To be given the death penalty is to be deprived of that right. To be told by other people that you, in an absolute and final sense, will not be deciding the terms of the obligatory rest of your shortened life, and that all that remains to you is whatever hellish afterlife awaits. But that’s just me. A lot of people probably don’t care that much. Maybe other people don’t view death with as much anxiety and loathing as I do. ‘Cause I’m shortsighted like that.
Point is, death penalty good or bad? It’s probably more neutral than anything. Right now, that is. People are so varied that we’d probably see the best case and worse case scenarios of its usage if it became legal worldwide. There’s no true point in fervently taking one side as much as another side because both sides are chock-full of “what-ifs” that can’t be proven without outright precognition.
I personally think death penalty should be brought back in the most extreme cases.
The man who stabbed six people (four being children) in broad daylight, in the middle of a park, in front of everyone, there's NO doubt he is guilty, there's NO room to say "he was framed" "he didn't mean it" or other bullshittery. Off with his head, no waste of our money by keeping him alive and cared for in prison.
A man who is framed for killing his best friend because their body was found in the trunk of his car, that's another story. Nobody saw it, it's way "easier" to build this up entirely (and quite literally shown in Ace Attorney lmao).
My point is: death penalty should be back when there is ZERO doubts about a murderer/rapist/pedo being guilty.
Yes, I include rapists and pedos in this too. They ruin a person's life. They don't deserve to live anymore.
Also that ending with Bowl lmao
Despite my grievances with the idea of death penalty at a base level, with this level of criteria for it I wouldn't mind it nearly as much.
@@leirbag1595 why didn't you say so before? Hahah, it would be much easier for us to come to an agreement.
@@LuzikArbuzik77 What I disagree most with death penalty is two things.
1) The risk of the state being able to kill people without sufficient evidence
2) The fact that it unnecessarily infringes on human rights, since locking up a serial killer is enough to prevent him from killing more.
Point 1 is made moot if there is a need for so much direct evidence that culpapibility is literally unrefutable, and someone who is willing to do this kind of thing in broad daylight to bring attention is an inherent danger.
I feel exactly the same. Life prison when it isn't 100% certain, and death when it is. Why we should waste resources on a person who is a confirmed murderer is beyond me.
When done properly death penalty can be the best deterrent for the worst crime
So, in the off chance that any innocents should be convicted, the whole thing just becomes the trolley problem
Painting societies that accept the death penalty as inherently immoral is a very presentist approach, as it implies we somehow held moral superiority over the countless generations before us, which isn't exactly beneficial for a reasonable understanding of history or psychology.
That being said, I do think that advocating for the death penalty in that way requires you admit to it being arbitrary to some extent due to the inherent imprecision of the law. In a society where judgement based on a person's perceived value, so, essentially, their reputation, determines what one "deserves", a death penalty is only a moral problem from this more intuitive perspective - essentially, it can only function in a society that hasn't normatively established its legal norms yet to a point where there was a definite answer to the death penalty's moral value beyond its debatable emotional effects.
As soon as a more regular, evidence-based kind of judgement becomes the norm, the death penalty can be debated from that perspective, which leaves those seeking to exert it with the need to advocate for its necessity through hard power rather than soft power - essentially, at this point of societal structural development, only an absolutist system can advocate for the death penalty as an essential part of its absolutist philosophy. Getting to a point in this development where the death penalty could be considered as emotionally and morally legitimate as its abolishment would require either a reversion to the previous, less standardised system, or an absolute dictatorship that justifies its power through itself. Otherwise, it will necessarily continue to be unfit to the legal ideals of the surrounding society - it may be kept in place, but remain an issue.
Man, it's rare that I feel like I'm not taking Phoeb's side with an argument. Especially when I do feel I agree with the sentiment. Assaulting/Murdering anyone in cold blood is an act that is very difficult to accept the idea of redemption for. Humans, being intelligent creatures, are almost always in some way or form aware of their actions and what those actions entail. Thus it is reasonable to suggest that some people aren't worth redemption and should just be killed off entirely. However, killing people often is the least helpful solution to the problem, and is more often simply the way most choose to end something quickly.
First of all, the justice system is a system built around the idea of reformation through punishment. I don't believe whatsoever that killing a murderer is hypocritical, but I do believe it's a waste of time. A killer won't care if they die, and may even prefer to be killed over lifelong incarceration because they would be able to avoid any process of punishment. Death is not a punishment. Death is an outcome. Punishment is a system that forces a being to reflect upon their choices that led them to being punished. Children are punished by their parents for bad behavior so they can learn that doing bad things results in bad outcomes. Imagine if parents simply killed their child when they did something bad? Of course this is extreme but the idea would actually serve a similar purpose to the death penalty. Say a family of four has an incident. One of the kids did something wrong and the parents punish them by killing them. Their only logic would be that this punishment would serve to teach THE OTHER CHILD that doing something bad is wrong because it will result in a bad outcome. The "punished" child received no punishment, only the outcome. They were given no chance to reflect on what they did, no chance to realize their error or even feel guilty about it. They just died. This is how it works for criminals too.
If you kill a criminal, all you do is tell other people that this could happen to them if they do this. It's a deterrent at most. And as studies have shown, not an amazing one. The reason why being that if death is the punishment, then you might as well go above and beyond with your crime. If you are going to die anyways, why not take as much as you can first? Life in prison, on the other hand, is actually a much better deterrent as well as offering a semblance of reformation. A criminal forced to spend YEARS behind bars will have nothing to do beyond reflecting on their actions. They may never see the light of day again, but they have a chance to realize their error and understand why they were incarcerated in the first place. Of course, they may never reform, but even if they don't, who cares? They will spend their entire lives in prison. This is far more punishing to them than instant death would ever be. The reason why FC would rather die than face prison is EXACTLY why the death penalty doesn't work. If you'd rather die than be imprisoned, then imprisoning you is a much better punishment, isn't it?
Secondly, why do we care about the families of the criminals and how they feel closure wise? The family has nothing to do with the criminal committing their crimes. It doesn't matter if the family raised them better, or knew a better person. The criminal committed a crime and thus must be punished for it. This is probably the only positive note for the death penalty. No one should care if the family grieves because the criminal clearly didn't care about the family. They are more likely to grieve over their relative's sudden descent into depravation more than their outcome anyways. However, it is still true that the justice system can fail and accidentally punish an innocent. The death penalty provides no chance for an innocent person to ever lead a life again, normal or otherwise. To some, or even many, that may not be that bad, as like said in the video, life in prison can change a person for the worse. That said, it is not the job of the justice system to treat people well under assumption of innocence. I do believe though that they should be held accountable in some way IF innocence is eventually proven. The person falsely accused should have some form of protections given, some relief or aid offered. They accidentally shattered an innocent man's life and should do their best to provide some way to fix it. Not only would this help innocent people, but it would cause legal systems to focus more heavily on avoiding false imprisonment. This would also help families who were made to suffer for no reason, despite the legal system having no obligation to those families.
Lastly, the idea that human rights should be conditional is how racism and all that shit happens. Human rights, to many, are already conditional. It goes to whomever makes the rules to decide what rights humans have and how much so. Yes, it sounds nice to say that a crazed killer is no longer treated as a human, but in reality it would be very difficult to keep it solely to criminals and not bleed into other aspects of society. Giving the worst of the worst basic rights proves that, despite everything, we as a society are above the level they stooped to. Otherwise, you may as well be legally allowed to kill any person you see on the street so long as they are committing a crime. They already lost their rights to be human, so it's no longer murder, just cleanup. I understand that it can be extremely difficult to force oneself to say that a person who KILLED CHILDREN IN COLD BLOOD should be offered any form of sincerity, but that is how we as people maintain order. We showcase that any person deranged enough to throw away their humanity deserves to be punished and made aware of the gravity of their deeds. You don't need to kill someone to do that.
All this said, I do believe there is precedent for a death sentence. Primarily if a person is beyond help or understanding. You may think anyone who kills children is already like this, but in reality there are a lot of crimes committed by people who are incredibly mentally ill. So much so that they have no perception of morality or consequence. They are, by all accounts, more akin to a rabid animal. This isn't just a sociopath who chose to abandon the idea of morality, but a sick person who generally cannot control themselves and would not understand the concept of punishment. This would have to be an extremely careful procedure as well. The person in question would need to be seen by multiple psychologists and therapists to determine their state of mind. If nothing can help them, from medication to mental aid, then death is a sound answer simply because this person is a threat to everything around them, and even themselves.
Tl;dr: Death penalty doesn't work as a punishment, only as an outcome. It should be saved for the wholly incapable of help. Justice systems exists to punish, not execute, and it should be the responsibility of the system to understand when it has made errors and do their best to fix them. People who commit heinous acts should be punished, not sent to the outcome to punish others.
Execution should only be reserved for serial killers. That's it.
If someone does something like kill a child, or worse... lock them up for the rest of their life and watch them suffer. Not even murderers would get such long sentences in my book. (At most 45 years.)
Bowl is extra chaotic evil this episode. 😂
Death penalty is just revenge, fueled by people's inability to keep their emotions in check. It's not about justice, it's about satisfaction at seeing an evil person suffer and die, aka sadism.
Fact of the matter is that death is final. Wrongful imprisonment still leaves you with countless possibilities. That's why comparisons like the ones FC made are stupid.
This fixation with revenge comes from the misconception that the purpose of prisons and the justice system is punishment. It is not. The purpose is to create a safer and better society for law abiding citizens. Prisons achieve this by separating dangerous individuals from the rest of society until it is safe to release them. Data and common sense show that death penalty does nothing to deter crime, therefore it has no purpose in a modern justice system.
So unless you want to advocate for a hyper machiavellian society, where instead of prisons, all criminals are swiftly killed for the sake of efficiency, you have no reasonable arguments for death penalty.