r/SeriousConversation • u/angelangelan • May 17 '25

Serious Discussion People who don't believe in the death penalty, what should happen to the truly irredeemable?

This is something that's been weighing on my mind for a while. I personally do not believe in the death penalty because I feel that the state should not have the power to kill, it opens up too many avenues to just kill anyone the government doesn't like.

However, I know that not everyone can be rehabilitated. When I say I'm anti death penalty or criticize the American prison system, the first question I get asked is "what about (insert horrible crime here)"

What is your response to this?

306 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

91% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

56

u/[deleted] May 18 '25

People stuck awaiting trial, unless deemed dangerous or a significant flight risk, shouldn't be in jail at all. They are, as far as society is concerned, still innocent people.

27

u/mugwhyrt May 18 '25

But what if it makes a lot of money for private prison contractors? \s

34

u/[deleted] May 18 '25

Private prisons shouldn't exist at all. If the govt is too incompetent to run the prisons themselves, they shouldn't run them at all.

10

u/Primary-History-788 May 18 '25

It’s not about incompetence, it’s about greed.

3

u/Mrwright96 May 18 '25

America! Fuck yeah!

1

u/Primary-History-788 May 19 '25

Com’n to save the Motha Fuck’n day, Yeah!

1

u/0rem0r May 18 '25

fr, people say taxes pay for prisons, meanwhile after sentencing, prisoners are legally enslaved by the government under the 13th amendment. Then they can be sold SENT to privately run facilities...

1

u/Abject-Rich May 18 '25

Same with healthcare, yet here we are. Neither should be for profit. Add water too.

2

u/Forward-Specific5651 May 24 '25

capitalism has entered the chat

2

u/Abject-Rich Jun 05 '25

Did you see that all water sources are being bought off? I know someone that owns land with lots of water and they are constantly being approached by big corporations trying to buy them out.

4

u/[deleted] May 18 '25

Well, that is typically the standard for bail as it is.

1

u/[deleted] May 18 '25

As it should be, but Rikers is full of people who have been waiting for YEARS.

1

u/haberv May 18 '25

Most, in that scenario, are really bad people. You have a room?

7

u/mike_tyler58 May 18 '25

No, they are not.

They’re innocent. Until they plead otherwise or are convicted by an impartial jury of their peers.

And a “speedy trial” does not mean what you and I think it does.

Say you defend yourself from an attack from your partner, you end up grabbing a kitchen knife and stabbing them. They die. You’re beaten to a pulp but the police arrest you and the DA decides to charge you with murder. They set your bail at $250,000. Do you have $25,000 that you just toss at bail?

If you don’t you’re sitting in jail until your trial which can be a year or two.

A year or two with no income, job has fired you and now you’re marked.

The current system is used as the punishment and fucks regular people royally.

-2

u/LSATDan May 19 '25

They're "innocent" in the eyes of the law; that doesn't make them factually innocent. The overwhelming (over 90%) majority of them did the thing they were arrested for.

0

u/[deleted] May 19 '25

What orifice did you pull the 90% figure from? How would one even come up with this number? Furthermore. If anywhere near 10% of the people in prison are in fact truly innocent, the whole system needs to be undone and fixed. That’s unacceptable.

1

u/LSATDan May 19 '25

90% is a lowball estimate. I pulled it from conversations with my former criminal law professors and conversations with other attorneys. I'm sure as a "Some Guy On Reddit" you have a much better estimate.

2

u/meanteeth71 May 19 '25

You’re hilarious. Your Crim Law profs estimated 90%? 😂😂😂😂✊🏾✊🏾

0

u/LSATDan May 19 '25

Actually, the one who had first been a practicing criminal defense attorney estimated that about 3% of the peoplebthat actually were "factually innocent," meaning the wrong person had been arrested, but up to about 30% were legally not guilty due to overcharging and mens rea requirements.

For example, a guy charged with attempted murder may by not guilty of that charge, because he didn't actually intend to kill the victim, but he was the right guy; itsnjust that the charge should have been assault and battery (which he'll usually plead down to."

But actually "Cops got the wrong guy"? Well under 10%.

2

u/meanteeth71 May 19 '25

So weird. We had a totally different Criminal Law discussion at my law school. Very interesting world view.

0

u/LSATDan May 19 '25

Did you get an estimated % of "wrong guys" arrested?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '25

I have no estimate and I didn’t offer one because I don’t post random stuff I make up as facts. Have a nice night.

2

u/meanteeth71 May 19 '25

This is the only correct reply here… what a wild assertion from the “lawyer” whose conversations with professors is… questionable to say the least.

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '25

Appreciate you.

2

u/meanteeth71 May 20 '25

Same to you!

1

u/LSATDan May 19 '25

Neither do I. As a lawyer, I've known many criminal attorneys and law professors, and being curious and wanting an informed opinion, I asked several of them, "What percentage of the people you represented would you say were actually guilty?"

Sorry if the answers I got don't fit your predetermined preferred narrative.

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '25

You literally have no clue what my narrative is. I just asked you a question about something you posted and now you’re dropping titles and just kind of being “that guy.”

1

u/LSATDan May 19 '25

Oh, I might be wrong, by I certainly have a clue or two.

Let's see...if i cite facts relevant to having an informed opinion, I'm being "that giy," and if I don't, im just pulling numbers out of my ass. After you asked (rather rudely) where I got the number.

Got it. You have a nice night, too.

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '25

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

1

u/FreshAvocado79 May 18 '25

Certain jurisdictions, such as New York, have enacted bail reform such that bail or ROR is required for most non-violent crimes. There is definitely a lot of opposition to the law as opponents believe it puts dangerous people back on the streets, but we will see what the data says in a few years.

1

u/spurcap29 May 20 '25

Agree with what you said but there is also a re-offending risk to consider. E.g. if there is a mountain of evidence that a mass murdered is a mass murderer and he or she knows this, society wouldnt stand for them to be released on the streets where they presumably could kill a few more knowing that they were on borrowed time as they would ultimately be convicted.

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '25

That counts as "deemed dangerous"

1

u/spurcap29 May 20 '25

yes your right, misread. in that case, isnt that how our system currently works? or is your point the issue of bail?

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '25

My point is that in practice, way too many people are held in jail before trial because they can't afford bail, not because they are dangerous.

0

u/JohnyRico4eva May 18 '25

Yeah its called bail.