Regarding the graphic at 7:20, I wanted to make a small remark. It is nothing chuck said, but only a part of the graphic. It says Germany abolished the death penalty in 1987. This was the eastern German GDR, which was formally dissolved and made part of the west German FRG. The west German FRG abolished the death penalty at her founding in 1949. Just wanted to mention this, cause I'm German, so a) it affects me b) I am pedantic
@@schwarzerritter5724 that isn‘t true, GG Art. 102 abolished the death penalty in 1949 in West Germany on a federal level. Until 2018, there were some state constitutions that said the death penalty was allowed, but the federal constitution (GG) overrules the state constitutions, making those state constitution death penalty articles meaningless.
I'm adding this to my playlist for long car rides. You do a fantastic job of summarizing and expanding on an important issue while keeping it interesting and funny. It's easy to see you were an educator and damn if I don't wish I had more teachers like you while growing up. Thanks again for all you do, Chuck.
As a general reaction to this commentary on the death penalty: This is more than half of why I watch your show, Chuck. You offer VERY high quality insight alongside the reviews and comedy. And just so you don't take this too seriously, or think that I'm only seriousness: MAGNETIC BALLS.
I had a long comment typed, but you covered everything well. Thank you for such an in depth look at these complexities. It's such a rare joy. I bet people far out ideologically on either side don't know half of what you outlined.
Going into this video, I didn't expect this kind of analysis. It is, however, a welcomed surprise. As a european from a country country which has abolished it since 1968 I have to say I fall into the group of 'I'm glad it is abolished', due to the reason of not being able to reverse it if wrong. That said, I totally understand the arguments for keeping it. I don't think there is a perfect answer for this question, both viewpoints have their advantages and disadvantages. Personally, I think for me it comes down to a simple thing: I prefer to let a guilty person have a less harsh punishment than a (wrongly convicted) innocent person have a punishment that can't be taken back or at least recompensed in at least some amount.
For you Star Trek moralists out there, I'm going to remind you that there's one crime in the Federation that still carries the Death penalty. Trespassing.
Yes, but it's of a planet whose inhabitants can seriously screw with your head while you're in orbit. You need a strong positive punishment to keep it away.
There's another crime that carries the death penalty, and that's getting in the way of Ben Sisko's m'f'ing pimp hand. Though that's not because of federation law, but due to the natural laws of the universe.
@Bthsr71 Those inhabitants can apparently screw with your head while your on Earth as well do that isn't really saying much. @Jp Londsdale I think the only mention of the insubordination leading to the death penalty was Lester in Turnabout Intruder, so I think it is safe to say that shouldn't be taken seriously.
I have to counter the American Exceptionalism of "other countries don't realise we are a union of states". Germany, Australia, and Canada are unions of states. The French have their departments (including regions all over the world), and the UK is a union of countries with devolved parliaments. Belgium is compose of two regions that dislike each other (though not as much as they collectively dislike Brussels). We all know that there is local and national law because we all live under similar circumstances. However, when speaking in internatinoal terms no-one cares about local laws. If one part of your country has the death penalty then it will be viewed as a part of the whole. Just as you would view it as being a part of another nation under the same circumstances
The difference is a French Department is much like a Feudal Fiefdom, a barony or county. And My state has about 100 counties, meaning the US may have somewhere around 5000. Culturally, California, New York, and Minnesota have about as much in common as France, Germany, and Hungary - as opposed to Normandy, Acquitane, and Picardie.
@@lynngreen7978 California, New York, and Minnesota are more akin to London, Cornwall, and the Lake District. They don't even have the cultural diversity that you can find within individual European nations let alone between them. France, Germany, and Hungary don't even have the same official languages (not including major regional dialect changes or minority languages like Breton). The EU is about equivalent to the USA in size, population, and economy. The European parliament has 7-8 different political alliances each composed of many different political parties. The parliament has several skilled translators on hand at all times due to the need to deal with the huge number of languages spoken. When was the last time you needed a translator to listen to a senate debate? When was the last time the house of representatives had more than 3 parties? When was the last time you had to learn a whole new language because you moved and needed a new driving licence? Anyway, you're point is irrelevant. Other nations also split their states/departments/countries into further subdivisions. You are aware that the US counties are literally named after the same subdivision found across Europe?
Remember: "American Exceptionalism" is about the freedom at the center of the constitution. The United States is the ONLY country that has the PEOPLE holding the power written into the founding. That's what's exceptional about the United States.
@@hariman7727 You have one piece of paper that says that and it is provably, verifibly false. The wealthy wield power in the US, not the people. You have active legislation that is removing voting rights from certain groups. The people who put that legislation in place still hold office. If the people truly held the power then that would not be so. The USA is only exceptional in how brainwashed its people are. The USA isn't even a full democracy anymore and there are educated people with reasonable arguments to say it isn't a democracy at all but an anocracy heading towards autocracy.
I hadn't known those facts about the Death Penalty, states, and how long some have abolished them. I came here for a Trek review and got some education...huh
One issue with the death penalty that you touched on, but is often over looked is the deterrent factor. A lot of harsh prison sentencing exists, not simply to punish an offender, but rather to show others what will happen if they commit the crime. In the case of the death penalty telling someone "do this thing and we can kill you" should be enough of a threat to persuade them not to brake the law. Of course this is a little more difficult in practice over theory as there are many, many factors to consider. Personally I believe there should be another solution. Just what that is is up for debate, but I can't help but feel that nothing is really solved
Exactly: crime in China is very low because you're not going to a retreat with golf courses and cable TV, you're going to a CHINESE PRISON! So people just don't FAAFO the same way they do in the west. In 6 years I've not seen a single fist fight in China because their friends won't let it escalate to the point where their friends risk being sent to a Chinese prison!
That, and one can’t readily prove capital punishment is or isn’t effective. If someone doesn’t commit a crime for fear of the punishment, you don’t have a way to count that, BUT you can count those who do the crime regardless of the punishment.
Regarding the argument of "if you execute someone that turns out to be innocent, you can't undo it": you could use this same argument about prison. If some guy spent 20 years in prison and was later found to be innocent, he can't get those 20 years of his life back.
There's a decidedly large difference between not being able to get X time back and not being able to get any time back. It's a horrible mistake either way but only one of them offers no room for recourse.
That's why the evidentiary requirement for the death penalty needs to be higher than "Death by natural causes in prison", so that ONLY people who are absolutely guilty get the death penalty.
In theory, there's people that's been executed by the American Government, and they were innocent cuz there's a statistical amount of... what, 1-in-7 or some such on death row being innocent. Which means by pure statistics, every 7 executions in America, is an innocent person being killed by the government. Kind of awful when you think about it.
Luckily for him there is plenty of brand new and even worse quality episodes of Discovery and Picard to make up for it. Oh wait, thats not lucky, thats not lucky at all.
Well, the death penalty is being shockingly relevant. Considering Russia announced (threatened? Postured?) today it might reinstate it in response to sanctions.
What makes you think Russia hasn't already done so for years? It's a repressive autocracy with the same gulags, secret police, and sham elections as the old USSR. If Russia has no qualms over assassinating journalists and dissidents thousands of miles away, it has no qualms about capital punishment either. We probably don't hear about those executions because they're either behind closed doors or the government censored media from talking about them.
I agree with the death penalty, but I think the standard of proof needs to be astronomical, to the point where a confession isn't good enough. Indisputable proof.
Chuck, everywhere metric is the norm, it was enforced by government fiat along with a BAN to some extent on using traditional units. The first Amendment precluded that, so it only really became a standard we synchronized with to smooth treaties.
The first amendment isn't an issue. No country made it illegal to use other units at all, just illegal to use them in commerce. That is within the federal government's authority under Article I Section 8. That's why, for instance, alcohol can only be sold in metric volumes. There is no constitutional barrier to metrication, just social resistance.
No country banned the use of traditional units. I'm Canadian, we use both °F and °C, inches and CMs, ounces and liters, grams and pounds: they taught metric in school and people kept using it into adulthood because it's easier than using pieces of eight!
I could see the DP in certain limited circumstances. I can also see why some are opposed against it. For me I think the convicted person should get the choice. If they would rather choose execution, or LWOP. I think it's fair to let them decide. That's if they admit they were guilty. If they challenge their conviction than that's different. I also support a maximum of 20 years behind bars for anyone, except for some extreme heinous crimes.
I think a reasonable compromise in the US would be a final check before the death penalty can be applied with the default being 'life in prison'. The standard there would be 'evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt' such as: clear video recordings of the offense taking place, irrefutable scientific evidence that person committed the offense (e.g. semen in a murder-rape case), or such an extreme volume of other evidence that any other explanation, aside from the accused having done the crime, would be something no reasonable person would judge likely (e.g. the presence of 'trophies' taken from multiple victims in the accused's house, etc). The reason I think this is because there are some crimes so heinous that any other punishment is grossly insufficient. For example, look at John Wayne Gacy. The man raped and murdered over 33 people and was so without remorse for his crimes that his final words before his execution were 'kiss my ass'.
Not saying you're wrong, people like: Anders Behring Breivik who killed 77 and then sued the government because he didn't have ALL the cable channels Alexandre Bissonnette who walked into a mosque and killed 6 at random You get the idea: there are people so disgusting and of whom there was never any doubt of their guilt, they just don't need to be alive any more. I'm not saying "torture them to death", but as a diver I can say Nitrogen is a very peaceful way to go, they just don't need to be on this earth any more.
As a Canadian who has traveled extensively in the US, all I can say is Americans are weird. I don't understand a lot of your culture: guns, death penalty, religious fundamentalism and politics. I do, however, love the museums in New York city, so thanks for them!
I think you make some very good points. However, your claim that this isn't a red vs. blue issue is somewhat undercut by the map you put on the screen. While it isn't _strictly_ on partisan lines, it's very close. Nearly every state which executes prisoners is either in the center or on the right, and nearly every state which doesn't is either in the center or on the left. I totally agree that most people have sincere and persuasive reasons for their views on the death penalty, but those views are still heavily shaped by political alignment.
As a Canadian, I can assure you every time there's a particularly egregious crime, capital punishment is reconsidered socially, if not actually in the houses of government. We don't judge you at all for using it.
@@Ragitsu Execution of criminals who have murdered many people themselves and can never be released for the risk of murdering more innocent people is not itself murder.
@@davido.1233 no its evil because for an example the bajorans for 40 years they were screaming for help but since they were occupied by the spoon heads the feds said sorry in there borders if the world had that mentality Germany would of steamroller the world. You don't just let a neighbor be victimized by another
@@donovanporter4545 Nobody cared about what Germany did until they where threatened too. They may have cared enough to support the countries fighting the Axis powers economically, but, for example, the USA did not enter the war until directly attacked.
@@davido.1233 Eh.... it's like America starting to meddle in how justice is done in another country. Why would the Federation have ANY superior answer to things like Justice, punishment, whom to uplift, whom to deny space travel, etc. etc? Sure, it might be seen as callous that they are specifically required to NOT help a primitive planet about to be hit by an asteroid, or get fried by a solar flare, specifically because it can lead to a future Hitler planet, and by direct means, the Federation will be responsible for such a horror being allowed to be created. Then again, Starfleet Rules do not apply to Civilians not under Federation/Starfleet workduty - and planets already having been in contact with other spacefaring races, already is aware of other races out there, is sending general distress calls with intent on contact, etc. can and most likely WILL be contacted by the UFP. Looking up the Memoryalpha wiki for Star Trek got a lot of info on the actual general orders of starfleet, directives, orders, etc. And the Prime Directive is very much a flexible thing under Captain Purview and flexibility.
why dont we have a star trek episode about the evils of the imperial system and how humanity cunningly rose above its primitive inconveniences to catch up to more advanced civilizations - such as venezuela
Because Star Trek is imaginary space communism, so they don't address the failures of communism/socialism. Well... except that one voyager episode about gaming the government medical system. That was a hilariously un-trek episode. The irony is that The Borg represent actual communism/socialism.
@@jlev1028 you need to read the book "the gulag archipelago". The Soviet union, one of the premier socialist experiments, allowed no descent and crushed its people into a uniform mass of obedience and fear.
@@hariman7727 I don't think its fair to label a post-sacristy as socialism. In the Federation there is no currency because....there is no need to barter when anything you want can be replicated and contained exotic matter reactions create near infinite energy. The question of can someone have private property is actually weighed in the manner of capitalism after all. Picard inherited an estate, Sisko collects vintage baseball cards, people have collections of holodeck programs. Its clear that people in the federation can and do have rights to both land and property instead of any collective ownership of either. Its merely been rendered from an objective value "there is only so much of this and everyone needs it" to "there is only so much of this and I want it" as relative ownership. This is not communism or Socialism. Its post scarcity where all systems of common barter are made irrelevant to daily life.
@@Mister-Thirteen That's what the most detailed Star Trek essayists have said! Maybe a little socialist and overoptimistic, but most definitely not a South American dictatorship.
For anyone reading the comments before finishing the video, this part after the 0:56 mark is just a diatribe about the Death Penalty (and not very good one either, really) I suspect that the actual discussion of the video begins again in part 2. I got about half way through this bit
One thing that can be said objectively about capital punishment - it actually costs the taxpayer significantly more to execute someone than it does to give them life without parole. People who are sentenced to death are very likely to appeal at every chance they get. They usually get public defenders. People wait an average of about nine years between sentence and execution. It gets very costly indeed. A lot of the states that have banned capital punishment in the past decade or so did so because it was too expensive to be worth keeping. So your tax dollars are better spent on life without parole than they are on the death penalty.
@@wilfdarr Unless you deny death row inmates the right of appeal, yes it would. If they can appeal, they will. If they can't afford their own lawyer they will use a public defender, and rich people don't generally get sentenced to death. There is no way around the cost unless you either refuse to let people sentenced to death appeal their sentences, or just take people out back and shoot them the same day the sentence is handed out. No government should ever have the power to do either of those things.
@@Talisguy That's a False Dichotomy: the cost is not in the appeal, the cost is in awaiting appeal: if our courts were properly funded, appeals would be handled quickly instead of awaiting appeal for up to three decades. They'd be convicted, they'd appeal to a superior court (add one year), possibly even Supreme Court (add second and third years), back to the original court (add a fourth year), appeal again if necessary (though unlikely because the issues should have been sorted the first time through superior courts: no new issues should be brought up at this time), etc, execution in under 5 years: it should not regularly take a decade for these things to wind through the courts!
@@wilfdarr No, the cost is in the appeal. It's not that much more expensive to imprison people on death row Vs in a regular prison, the costs are in the legal process. They're in legal fees. Appealing death penalty cases requires extremely specialist - and thus extremely expensive - help. The tests can take a long time and they're generally very costly. That will be true regardless of how much money you pour into the legal system - not everyone is trained to handle these cases, the emotional toll can be pretty extreme, and so the additional expense is pretty much non-negotiable. Trials where the death penalty is considered are always longer and more complex than non-death penalty cases. You have a lot of opportunities to appeal because once someone is executed, you can't un-ring that bell. There's also a whole lot of extra trauma involved in the death penalty than there is in life imprisonment. Studies have shown that the families of murder victims generally feel more catharsis and closure, more peace of mind, in the long term when the murderers are sentenced to life in prison than the death penalty, because every new appeal brings the killer back into their minds, which is an impediment to them ultimately moving on with their lives. And it's obviously highly stressful for the defendants, particularly if they're innocent. So, no, there are no guaranteed ways of streamlining the process without restricting access to appeals, because that's where the vast majority of the extra expenses are. And if you're putting so much extra money into the court system to make the death penalty less expensive...you could just increase funding in the legal system without including the death penalty. Because, yes, it absolutely does have to be more expensive if you allow appeals. It will *still* be more expensive than life imprisonment in the system you propose, the cost gap between life imprisonment and the death penalty just wouldn't be as large as it is now.
@@wilfdarr Also, if you were to reform the courts to improve the application of capital punishment, your first stop should be the overturn of a Supreme Court ruling that rules that it's not unconstitutional to execute someone who's been sentenced to death *even if later examination proves their innocence.* It's not illegal to just ignore evidence that someone was innocent if their original trial was judged to be fair and equitable, and, spoiler alert, they often aren't. ...That absolutely needs to change before anything else. Myself, the only way I'd be fine with keeping the death penalty is if deliberately ignoring, destroying or withholding evidence that proved the innocence of someone sentenced to death meant an automatic death sentence.
The Death Penalty sets the value of human life as human life. Otherwise, the value of human life is life in jail, and possibly relative celebrity in jail for being a killer. But only for the worst of crimes, where the evidence is beyond the level of beyond reproach should the death penalty be used, because killing an innocent man is the worst of injustice. I don't want it to be open season criminals. I want justice for the absolute worst of people who feel no remorse.
I favor the death penalty. For the sort in the example. Committed the most vile crimes, in front of plenty of witnesses, laughed about it in the court, and seems unlikely to ever be repentant. But for everyone else, I would like to see the system be about rehabilitation, and reform, not slave labor.
The Death Penalty is about the value of life. Taking a life (especially in a cruel/depraved manner) is worth your own life. It shouldn't be absolute because there are grey areas, and it should DEFINITELY only be applied in cases where the evidence is multiple levels of irrefutable of a person's guilt. But it's not just vengeance as to why the U.S. has the death penalty, and as why the death penalty exists.
We also have abortion of viable unborn individuals. The death penalty is done sparingly, abortion is done many times a day, and more than thousands of times a year.
You have the legal right to let someone die if you don't feel like keeping them alive at your own physical expense. If you refuse to donate bone marrow to a dying relative who you know for a fact will die without it, and who will never be able to find another matching donor in time... that's completely legal. You can't be coerced or legally forced to use your body parts to save lives if you don't want to, and we take this so seriously that we don't even take perfectly usable organs from *corpses* if the body's previous owner didn't consent to it while alive. Refusing to allow access to abortions is denying living women the same legal rights we give to dead fucking bodies.
I disagree, because the value of a life is priceless, and can only be paid with your own life. Not without exception, but as a possibility, and with strict standards of evidence above regular conviction.
@@hariman7727 its a pay exchange? Life for life eh? Well... A pregnant women who has an abortion, whos life do we pay for that life - the doctor or the woman? Can't do both because its 1:1 if you kill both then you have to pay for the extra one killed. What if regardless of high standards of evidence, somehow you find out its wrong - and you killed an innocent, who pays with there own life for that killing? If we go to war, do we have to make sure that each person that we kill will have at least one person killed on our side? Someone ends there own life - the cost of life is life who pays? One person takes out several - they can only die once, so how does that "pay"? And, last but not least - you said "objectively" meaning that this is true regardless of moral/ethical views - you now have to prove that as well.
@@DeconvertedMan 1: Abortion should be illegal in the first place, and people should be moral enough to protect the unborn. 2: Investigate how the error happened. Was it fraud? Was it a series of mistakes? Why wasn't the mistake caught? Judge it on a case by case basis after that, but investigate BEFORE that 3: War already has a lot of laws governing it. You're creating a hypothetical of an extreme to attempt to forestall any argument. 4: Suicide is a different matter entirely. 5: I was not the one who said "Objectively". That was a different commenter.
![เป็นไปได้ไหม - WanMai [Teaser] | 05-12-24](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/P5Uto6e453w/mqdefault.jpg)
Regarding the graphic at 7:20, I wanted to make a small remark. It is nothing chuck said, but only a part of the graphic. It says Germany abolished the death penalty in 1987. This was the eastern German GDR, which was formally dissolved and made part of the west German FRG. The west German FRG abolished the death penalty at her founding in 1949. Just wanted to mention this, cause I'm German, so a) it affects me b) I am pedantic
If you want to be extra pedantic, West Germany had the death penalty until 2018, although it had not been used since 1949.
Accuracy is important.
@@schwarzerritter5724 West Germany wasn't a thing anymore after 1990. I don't know why you're saying "Don't be pendantic" when you're making up shit.
@@schwarzerritter5724 that isn‘t true, GG Art. 102 abolished the death penalty in 1949 in West Germany on a federal level. Until 2018, there were some state constitutions that said the death penalty was allowed, but the federal constitution (GG) overrules the state constitutions, making those state constitution death penalty articles meaningless.
Once again, your blend of eloquence in discussing serious issues and humor is top-notch. That's why I've been watching for over a decade.
This kind of video is why I'm still following the Chuck show after 11 years.
Same
I'm adding this to my playlist for long car rides. You do a fantastic job of summarizing and expanding on an important issue while keeping it interesting and funny. It's easy to see you were an educator and damn if I don't wish I had more teachers like you while growing up.
Thanks again for all you do, Chuck.
Point of order: most Americans don't seem to understand that the USA is 50 State governments plus the Federal Government.
60-ish years of awful public educations haven't helped in that regard.
@@hariman7727 All according to keikaku
People looking for a Star Trek review: "When are they going to get to the fireworks factory!"
As a general reaction to this commentary on the death penalty:
This is more than half of why I watch your show, Chuck. You offer VERY high quality insight alongside the reviews and comedy.
And just so you don't take this too seriously, or think that I'm only seriousness:
MAGNETIC BALLS.
Those two rapping clowns want to know your location.
I had a long comment typed, but you covered everything well. Thank you for such an in depth look at these complexities. It's such a rare joy. I bet people far out ideologically on either side don't know half of what you outlined.
Going into this video, I didn't expect this kind of analysis. It is, however, a welcomed surprise. As a european from a country country which has abolished it since 1968 I have to say I fall into the group of 'I'm glad it is abolished', due to the reason of not being able to reverse it if wrong. That said, I totally understand the arguments for keeping it. I don't think there is a perfect answer for this question, both viewpoints have their advantages and disadvantages.
Personally, I think for me it comes down to a simple thing: I prefer to let a guilty person have a less harsh punishment than a (wrongly convicted) innocent person have a punishment that can't be taken back or at least recompensed in at least some amount.
For you Star Trek moralists out there, I'm going to remind you that there's one crime in the Federation that still carries the Death penalty. Trespassing.
Yes, but it's of a planet whose inhabitants can seriously screw with your head while you're in orbit. You need a strong positive punishment to keep it away.
There's another crime that carries the death penalty, and that's getting in the way of Ben Sisko's m'f'ing pimp hand. Though that's not because of federation law, but due to the natural laws of the universe.
Didn't insubordination or maybe mutiny carry the death penalty in TOS
In TOS, it is possible that is no longer the case in TNG.
@Bthsr71 Those inhabitants can apparently screw with your head while your on Earth as well do that isn't really saying much.
@Jp Londsdale I think the only mention of the insubordination leading to the death penalty was Lester in Turnabout Intruder, so I think it is safe to say that shouldn't be taken seriously.
I have to counter the American Exceptionalism of "other countries don't realise we are a union of states".
Germany, Australia, and Canada are unions of states.
The French have their departments (including regions all over the world), and the UK is a union of countries with devolved parliaments.
Belgium is compose of two regions that dislike each other (though not as much as they collectively dislike Brussels).
We all know that there is local and national law because we all live under similar circumstances.
However, when speaking in internatinoal terms no-one cares about local laws. If one part of your country has the death penalty then it will be viewed as a part of the whole. Just as you would view it as being a part of another nation under the same circumstances
The difference is a French Department is much like a Feudal Fiefdom, a barony or county. And My state has about 100 counties, meaning the US may have somewhere around 5000. Culturally, California, New York, and Minnesota have about as much in common as France, Germany, and Hungary - as opposed to Normandy, Acquitane, and Picardie.
@@lynngreen7978 California, New York, and Minnesota are more akin to London, Cornwall, and the Lake District. They don't even have the cultural diversity that you can find within individual European nations let alone between them. France, Germany, and Hungary don't even have the same official languages (not including major regional dialect changes or minority languages like Breton).
The EU is about equivalent to the USA in size, population, and economy. The European parliament has 7-8 different political alliances each composed of many different political parties. The parliament has several skilled translators on hand at all times due to the need to deal with the huge number of languages spoken.
When was the last time you needed a translator to listen to a senate debate? When was the last time the house of representatives had more than 3 parties? When was the last time you had to learn a whole new language because you moved and needed a new driving licence?
Anyway, you're point is irrelevant. Other nations also split their states/departments/countries into further subdivisions. You are aware that the US counties are literally named after the same subdivision found across Europe?
Remember: "American Exceptionalism" is about the freedom at the center of the constitution.
The United States is the ONLY country that has the PEOPLE holding the power written into the founding.
That's what's exceptional about the United States.
@@hariman7727 You have one piece of paper that says that and it is provably, verifibly false. The wealthy wield power in the US, not the people.
You have active legislation that is removing voting rights from certain groups. The people who put that legislation in place still hold office. If the people truly held the power then that would not be so.
The USA is only exceptional in how brainwashed its people are. The USA isn't even a full democracy anymore and there are educated people with reasonable arguments to say it isn't a democracy at all but an anocracy heading towards autocracy.
@@hariman7727 *cough* Israel *cough*
That was a good and robust discussion.
Batman comes through the doors CARRYING 2 DUDES AT THEIR NECKS HOLDING EM UP N OUT WITH HIS ARMS STRAIGHT
I hadn't known those facts about the Death Penalty, states, and how long some have abolished them. I came here for a Trek review and got some education...huh
And that's a major reason why I'm a fan of SFDebris.
Comedy AND insight, wrapped in a review show.
@@hariman7727 Same here. And I like how you put it, because it just fits so well...Comedy AND insight, wrapped in a review show
Overall this installment was a surprisingly thoughtful and well-done episode of Voyager.
Re: 8:03 - um, 23 of the 27 States? Did I miss a line somewhere?
One of me favourite voyager episode's
Who's that at 12:37?
One issue with the death penalty that you touched on, but is often over looked is the deterrent factor.
A lot of harsh prison sentencing exists, not simply to punish an offender, but rather to show others what will happen if they commit the crime. In the case of the death penalty telling someone "do this thing and we can kill you" should be enough of a threat to persuade them not to brake the law.
Of course this is a little more difficult in practice over theory as there are many, many factors to consider. Personally I believe there should be another solution. Just what that is is up for debate, but I can't help but feel that nothing is really solved
Exactly: crime in China is very low because you're not going to a retreat with golf courses and cable TV, you're going to a CHINESE PRISON! So people just don't FAAFO the same way they do in the west. In 6 years I've not seen a single fist fight in China because their friends won't let it escalate to the point where their friends risk being sent to a Chinese prison!
That, and one can’t readily prove capital punishment is or isn’t effective. If someone doesn’t commit a crime for fear of the punishment, you don’t have a way to count that, BUT you can count those who do the crime regardless of the punishment.
Russia: Abolished in practise.
Excuse me, while I use that JJJ laughing clip.
Is the US the most subdivided country? I'd be curious to know.
...in a world where there's literally countries locked in civil war?
Iko would have been a good officer they should have kept him for Astrometrics.
Regarding the argument of "if you execute someone that turns out to be innocent, you can't undo it": you could use this same argument about prison. If some guy spent 20 years in prison and was later found to be innocent, he can't get those 20 years of his life back.
There's a decidedly large difference between not being able to get X time back and not being able to get any time back. It's a horrible mistake either way but only one of them offers no room for recourse.
That's why the evidentiary requirement for the death penalty needs to be higher than "Death by natural causes in prison", so that ONLY people who are absolutely guilty get the death penalty.
In theory, there's people that's been executed by the American Government, and they were innocent cuz there's a statistical amount of... what, 1-in-7 or some such on death row being innocent. Which means by pure statistics, every 7 executions in America, is an innocent person being killed by the government.
Kind of awful when you think about it.
@@troikas3353Not really. A dead guy isn't going to know that they found their mistake 20 years down the road.
They can beam somebody from a damaged ship to sickbay but not from sickbay to the brig.
In that statistics part, did they count the US among the torture using ones or not?
he's almost run out of voyager eps to review - wow.
I've been watching his videos since high school (around 13 years), it doesn't surprise me that he's almost out of Voyager episodes.
Then he can start all over again.
_From the top!_
@@davido.1233 ja its like - "now what" but there is more trek out now. for better or worse... worse I'd say but...
@@DeconvertedMan Better , worse, and samey.
Besides, there is so much more than Trek out there.
Luckily for him there is plenty of brand new and even worse quality episodes of Discovery and Picard to make up for it. Oh wait, thats not lucky, thats not lucky at all.
ITS THE VOYAGER COUNTDOWN! I'm gonna miss our merry band of hapless pawns of Janeway's rampage.
How many episodes are left to be revieweed?
Well, the death penalty is being shockingly relevant. Considering Russia announced (threatened? Postured?) today it might reinstate it in response to sanctions.
What makes you think Russia hasn't already done so for years? It's a repressive autocracy with the same gulags, secret police, and sham elections as the old USSR. If Russia has no qualms over assassinating journalists and dissidents thousands of miles away, it has no qualms about capital punishment either. We probably don't hear about those executions because they're either behind closed doors or the government censored media from talking about them.
Amusingly, whatever repentance of Voyager seems to be happening through other shows.
I agree with the death penalty, but I think the standard of proof needs to be astronomical, to the point where a confession isn't good enough. Indisputable proof.
Haven't seen Philosoraptor in years
I didn't know you were also from WI.
Chuck, everywhere metric is the norm, it was enforced by government fiat along with a BAN to some extent on using traditional units. The first Amendment precluded that, so it only really became a standard we synchronized with to smooth treaties.
The first amendment isn't an issue. No country made it illegal to use other units at all, just illegal to use them in commerce. That is within the federal government's authority under Article I Section 8. That's why, for instance, alcohol can only be sold in metric volumes. There is no constitutional barrier to metrication, just social resistance.
No country banned the use of traditional units. I'm Canadian, we use both °F and °C, inches and CMs, ounces and liters, grams and pounds: they taught metric in school and people kept using it into adulthood because it's easier than using pieces of eight!
Where did you live and why did you live there ?
I understand why you took a bit longer with this one.
I could see the DP in certain limited circumstances. I can also see why some are opposed against it.
For me I think the convicted person should get the choice. If they would rather choose execution, or LWOP. I think it's fair to let them decide. That's if they admit they were guilty. If they challenge their conviction than that's different.
I also support a maximum of 20 years behind bars for anyone, except for some extreme heinous crimes.
I think a reasonable compromise in the US would be a final check before the death penalty can be applied with the default being 'life in prison'. The standard there would be 'evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt' such as: clear video recordings of the offense taking place, irrefutable scientific evidence that person committed the offense (e.g. semen in a murder-rape case), or such an extreme volume of other evidence that any other explanation, aside from the accused having done the crime, would be something no reasonable person would judge likely (e.g. the presence of 'trophies' taken from multiple victims in the accused's house, etc).
The reason I think this is because there are some crimes so heinous that any other punishment is grossly insufficient. For example, look at John Wayne Gacy. The man raped and murdered over 33 people and was so without remorse for his crimes that his final words before his execution were 'kiss my ass'.
The standard is already "beyond any reasonable doubt", that's literally the standard today.
Not saying you're wrong, people like:
Anders Behring Breivik who killed 77 and then sued the government because he didn't have ALL the cable channels
Alexandre Bissonnette who walked into a mosque and killed 6 at random
You get the idea: there are people so disgusting and of whom there was never any doubt of their guilt, they just don't need to be alive any more. I'm not saying "torture them to death", but as a diver I can say Nitrogen is a very peaceful way to go, they just don't need to be on this earth any more.
"The Justice Department" has always sounded Orwellian to me. Real "Ministry of Truth" energy.
Apprentice mixed with runnning man I am hoping personally.
As a Canadian who has traveled extensively in the US, all I can say is Americans are weird. I don't understand a lot of your culture: guns, death penalty, religious fundamentalism and politics. I do, however, love the museums in New York city, so thanks for them!
As a Canadian, I understand it perfectly and have been trying to get a green card for 2 decades now.
The United States: too much lead in the water, incest and religion.
That map is wrong, we have the death penalty in Virginia srill
I think you make some very good points. However, your claim that this isn't a red vs. blue issue is somewhat undercut by the map you put on the screen. While it isn't _strictly_ on partisan lines, it's very close. Nearly every state which executes prisoners is either in the center or on the right, and nearly every state which doesn't is either in the center or on the left. I totally agree that most people have sincere and persuasive reasons for their views on the death penalty, but those views are still heavily shaped by political alignment.
Yeah no doubt
As a Canadian, I can assure you every time there's a particularly egregious crime, capital punishment is reconsidered socially, if not actually in the houses of government. We don't judge you at all for using it.
...da fook?
@@Ragitsu Capital punishment is a legitimate form of punishment, and though we don't use it ourselves, we don't judge the USA for using it.
@@wilfdarr Murder is not punishment.
@@Ragitsu Execution of criminals who have murdered many people themselves and can never be released for the risk of murdering more innocent people is not itself murder.
@@wilfdarr Sure it is: they're detained and not going anywhere. That's murder. Self-defense in the heat of the moment is another matter.
The prime directive is evil
I'd say it's more callous than evil.
@@davido.1233 no its evil because for an example the bajorans for 40 years they were screaming for help but since they were occupied by the spoon heads the feds said sorry in there borders if the world had that mentality Germany would of steamroller the world. You don't just let a neighbor be victimized by another
@@donovanporter4545 Nobody cared about what Germany did until they where threatened too.
They may have cared enough to support the countries fighting the Axis powers economically, but, for example, the USA did not enter the war until directly attacked.
@@davido.1233 Eh.... it's like America starting to meddle in how justice is done in another country. Why would the Federation have ANY superior answer to things like Justice, punishment, whom to uplift, whom to deny space travel, etc. etc?
Sure, it might be seen as callous that they are specifically required to NOT help a primitive planet about to be hit by an asteroid, or get fried by a solar flare, specifically because it can lead to a future Hitler planet, and by direct means, the Federation will be responsible for such a horror being allowed to be created.
Then again, Starfleet Rules do not apply to Civilians not under Federation/Starfleet workduty - and planets already having been in contact with other spacefaring races, already is aware of other races out there, is sending general distress calls with intent on contact, etc. can and most likely WILL be contacted by the UFP. Looking up the Memoryalpha wiki for Star Trek got a lot of info on the actual general orders of starfleet, directives, orders, etc. And the Prime Directive is very much a flexible thing under Captain Purview and flexibility.
why dont we have a star trek episode about the evils of the imperial system and how humanity cunningly rose above its primitive inconveniences to catch up to more advanced civilizations - such as venezuela
Because Star Trek is imaginary space communism, so they don't address the failures of communism/socialism.
Well... except that one voyager episode about gaming the government medical system. That was a hilariously un-trek episode.
The irony is that The Borg represent actual communism/socialism.
@@hariman7727 No, the Borg just represents collectivism. Socialists and Communists don't want to brainwash everyone into an assimilated mass.
@@jlev1028 you need to read the book "the gulag archipelago". The Soviet union, one of the premier socialist experiments, allowed no descent and crushed its people into a uniform mass of obedience and fear.
@@hariman7727 I don't think its fair to label a post-sacristy as socialism.
In the Federation there is no currency because....there is no need to barter when anything you want can be replicated and contained exotic matter reactions create near infinite energy. The question of can someone have private property is actually weighed in the manner of capitalism after all. Picard inherited an estate, Sisko collects vintage baseball cards, people have collections of holodeck programs. Its clear that people in the federation can and do have rights to both land and property instead of any collective ownership of either.
Its merely been rendered from an objective value "there is only so much of this and everyone needs it" to "there is only so much of this and I want it" as relative ownership.
This is not communism or Socialism. Its post scarcity where all systems of common barter are made irrelevant to daily life.
@@Mister-Thirteen That's what the most detailed Star Trek essayists have said! Maybe a little socialist and overoptimistic, but most definitely not a South American dictatorship.
For anyone reading the comments before finishing the video, this part after the 0:56 mark is just a diatribe about the Death Penalty (and not very good one either, really) I suspect that the actual discussion of the video begins again in part 2. I got about half way through this bit
Sweden abolished the peace time
death penalty in 1921, and the war
time death penalty in 1972 .
One thing that can be said objectively about capital punishment - it actually costs the taxpayer significantly more to execute someone than it does to give them life without parole. People who are sentenced to death are very likely to appeal at every chance they get. They usually get public defenders. People wait an average of about nine years between sentence and execution. It gets very costly indeed. A lot of the states that have banned capital punishment in the past decade or so did so because it was too expensive to be worth keeping. So your tax dollars are better spent on life without parole than they are on the death penalty.
It wouldn't have to.
@@wilfdarr Unless you deny death row inmates the right of appeal, yes it would. If they can appeal, they will. If they can't afford their own lawyer they will use a public defender, and rich people don't generally get sentenced to death. There is no way around the cost unless you either refuse to let people sentenced to death appeal their sentences, or just take people out back and shoot them the same day the sentence is handed out. No government should ever have the power to do either of those things.
@@Talisguy That's a False Dichotomy: the cost is not in the appeal, the cost is in awaiting appeal: if our courts were properly funded, appeals would be handled quickly instead of awaiting appeal for up to three decades. They'd be convicted, they'd appeal to a superior court (add one year), possibly even Supreme Court (add second and third years), back to the original court (add a fourth year), appeal again if necessary (though unlikely because the issues should have been sorted the first time through superior courts: no new issues should be brought up at this time), etc, execution in under 5 years: it should not regularly take a decade for these things to wind through the courts!
@@wilfdarr No, the cost is in the appeal. It's not that much more expensive to imprison people on death row Vs in a regular prison, the costs are in the legal process. They're in legal fees.
Appealing death penalty cases requires extremely specialist - and thus extremely expensive - help. The tests can take a long time and they're generally very costly. That will be true regardless of how much money you pour into the legal system - not everyone is trained to handle these cases, the emotional toll can be pretty extreme, and so the additional expense is pretty much non-negotiable. Trials where the death penalty is considered are always longer and more complex than non-death penalty cases. You have a lot of opportunities to appeal because once someone is executed, you can't un-ring that bell. There's also a whole lot of extra trauma involved in the death penalty than there is in life imprisonment. Studies have shown that the families of murder victims generally feel more catharsis and closure, more peace of mind, in the long term when the murderers are sentenced to life in prison than the death penalty, because every new appeal brings the killer back into their minds, which is an impediment to them ultimately moving on with their lives. And it's obviously highly stressful for the defendants, particularly if they're innocent. So, no, there are no guaranteed ways of streamlining the process without restricting access to appeals, because that's where the vast majority of the extra expenses are.
And if you're putting so much extra money into the court system to make the death penalty less expensive...you could just increase funding in the legal system without including the death penalty. Because, yes, it absolutely does have to be more expensive if you allow appeals. It will *still* be more expensive than life imprisonment in the system you propose, the cost gap between life imprisonment and the death penalty just wouldn't be as large as it is now.
@@wilfdarr Also, if you were to reform the courts to improve the application of capital punishment, your first stop should be the overturn of a Supreme Court ruling that rules that it's not unconstitutional to execute someone who's been sentenced to death *even if later examination proves their innocence.* It's not illegal to just ignore evidence that someone was innocent if their original trial was judged to be fair and equitable, and, spoiler alert, they often aren't. ...That absolutely needs to change before anything else.
Myself, the only way I'd be fine with keeping the death penalty is if deliberately ignoring, destroying or withholding evidence that proved the innocence of someone sentenced to death meant an automatic death sentence.
Ah, executive systems....
I shouldn't complain, it has kept the D.E.A. out of a lot of states... when certain presidents are in power, anyways.
Ok junkie
"I'M THE GOVERNMENT,
I'M THE GOVERNMENT.
I'M THE REASON NOTHING WORKS!"
Government isn't the problem, it's the people who care so little, they elect fools.
Chomos should be fed to dogs
The Death Penalty sets the value of human life as human life. Otherwise, the value of human life is life in jail, and possibly relative celebrity in jail for being a killer.
But only for the worst of crimes, where the evidence is beyond the level of beyond reproach should the death penalty be used, because killing an innocent man is the worst of injustice.
I don't want it to be open season criminals. I want justice for the absolute worst of people who feel no remorse.
I'm gay and I learned a few new things about the death penalty. Thanks!
Also, the Apprentice joke is terribly good.
I favor the death penalty. For the sort in the example. Committed the most vile crimes, in front of plenty of witnesses, laughed about it in the court, and seems unlikely to ever be repentant.
But for everyone else, I would like to see the system be about rehabilitation, and reform, not slave labor.
The death penalty has never been a good thing.
The US need to move beyond "vengeance" as the only thing they offer victims of crime. Maybe then, the death penalty would feel necessary (for some).
The Death Penalty is about the value of life. Taking a life (especially in a cruel/depraved manner) is worth your own life.
It shouldn't be absolute because there are grey areas, and it should DEFINITELY only be applied in cases where the evidence is multiple levels of irrefutable of a person's guilt.
But it's not just vengeance as to why the U.S. has the death penalty, and as why the death penalty exists.
We also have abortion of viable unborn individuals. The death penalty is done sparingly, abortion is done many times a day, and more than thousands of times a year.
Abortion is a boon for society, and the aborted lumps of cells aren't individuals.
More abortions now please.
Had one, was the right choice at the time. 10/10 would do again under the same circumstances.
Abortion =/= death penalty.
You have the legal right to let someone die if you don't feel like keeping them alive at your own physical expense. If you refuse to donate bone marrow to a dying relative who you know for a fact will die without it, and who will never be able to find another matching donor in time... that's completely legal. You can't be coerced or legally forced to use your body parts to save lives if you don't want to, and we take this so seriously that we don't even take perfectly usable organs from *corpses* if the body's previous owner didn't consent to it while alive. Refusing to allow access to abortions is denying living women the same legal rights we give to dead fucking bodies.
a great overview of the death penalty. its an outdated system that needs to go.
Objectively false.
@@Ozymandias2x what part? I need your augment.
I disagree, because the value of a life is priceless, and can only be paid with your own life. Not without exception, but as a possibility, and with strict standards of evidence above regular conviction.
@@hariman7727 its a pay exchange? Life for life eh? Well...
A pregnant women who has an abortion, whos life do we pay for that life - the doctor or the woman? Can't do both because its 1:1 if you kill both then you have to pay for the extra one killed.
What if regardless of high standards of evidence, somehow you find out its wrong - and you killed an innocent, who pays with there own life for that killing?
If we go to war, do we have to make sure that each person that we kill will have at least one person killed on our side?
Someone ends there own life - the cost of life is life who pays?
One person takes out several - they can only die once, so how does that "pay"?
And, last but not least - you said "objectively" meaning that this is true regardless of moral/ethical views - you now have to prove that as well.
@@DeconvertedMan 1: Abortion should be illegal in the first place, and people should be moral enough to protect the unborn.
2: Investigate how the error happened. Was it fraud? Was it a series of mistakes? Why wasn't the mistake caught?
Judge it on a case by case basis after that, but investigate BEFORE that
3: War already has a lot of laws governing it. You're creating a hypothetical of an extreme to attempt to forestall any argument.
4: Suicide is a different matter entirely.
5: I was not the one who said "Objectively". That was a different commenter.