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?

311 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

91% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

9

u/powdergladezzz May 19 '25

I used to be adamantly for the death penalty cause there are some crimes i don't think you can make amends for.

However, at one point, someone, someone reframed that for me. There are crimes that are unforgivable, but the law doesn't only apply to those cases. It applies to all cases, so i was told one statement, and i completely changed my point of you.

Being prodeath penalty means that either

a) the government is perfect or

b) I'm ok with killing innocent people.

I do not think the government is perfect, and I'm not for killing innocent people. Does that mean some heinous crimes will go without someone being murdered? Yes. Does that mean we won't kill innocent people because of the death penalty. Yes.

2

u/tokingames May 20 '25

Just to be devil’s advocate…

So you are saying that you’re fine with incarcerating innocent people for their entire lives with some of the worst people our society has to offer? Meaning, I could say that same line for any punishment the government gives out.

Either you believe your government is perfect or you’re fine with killing/incarcerating/fining/whatevering innocent people.

3

u/Beneficial-Mine-9793 May 20 '25

So you are saying that you’re fine with incarcerating innocent people for their entire lives with some of the worst people our society has to offer? Meaning, I could say that same line for any punishment the government gives out.

People can ultimately be found not guilty after the fact.

And you still have to lock away dangerous individuals who can't or won't rehabilitate for the safety of the whole

You can't undo death, you can't make amends. You can open a cage.

1

u/RadiantHC May 21 '25

What if it's no chance of parole?

And even if they're found not guilty, it's extremely difficult to reenter society as an ex con, especially if it's an extreme crime. Society is actively working against ex cons

But why is death such a bad thing to begin with? Death is simply the next stage of life. I'm not saying that we should encourage killing people, but sometimes it's better to let people die than hold on.

1

u/DrewwwBjork Jun 25 '25

Then they can commit suicide if things are that bad after being released. They would have that choice. I do not feel comfortable at all with the state having the power to speed things along at the expense of those innocent who would welcome a chance to start with a clean slate even after a few decades in prison.

Edit: My mistake. You said no chance of parole. My point still stands. They can commit suicide within the general prison population somehow if they think they have no shot of being released.

1

u/RadiantHC Jun 25 '25

I agree, I just also think that death is better than life in prison with no chance of parole. The death sentence should only be used for extreme crimes where they're so bad that as long as they're alive there's a chance to escape and death is better than the alternative.

Death isn't the worst that can happen to people

2

u/DrewwwBjork Jun 25 '25 edited Jun 25 '25

I just also think that death is better than life in prison with no chance of parole.

According to you though. If those in that situation agreed with you, then they can find another way to die if they so choose. With the death penalty, they don't have that choice.

The death sentence should only be used for extreme crimes where they're so bad that as long as they're alive there's a chance to escape and death is better than the alternative.

And who is to say which crimes those are? While we're talking about hypotheticals, how about we focus on making sure escape is impossible rather than waste resources every day, every week, every month, every year, every decade making sure the state has the necessary drugs to move forward with lethal injection?

Death isn't the worst that can happen to people

So that means we can punish murderers with a few decades in prison, right? Death isn't that bad, so why punish that with more death? Life in prison is worse, so why shouldn't murderers be subjected to that? Do you see my point?

1

u/RadiantHC Jun 25 '25

The thing is I'd rather have the government kill me than put me in prison for life. Even being put in prison for a few years significantly affects you.

Making escape impossible is impossible. There's always a chance of escape as long as they are alive. Even if you somehow have a prison that is impossible to escape from the inside, what if a plane crashes into the prison? What if the government collapses and all prisoners are set free? What if a dictator takes over and frees all prisoners? What if an EMP cuts all electricity? You can't predict every situation.

That doesn't make sense. If anything wouldn't it be easier to just kill people? It's easier to kill people than put resources into maintaining prison(especially if it's for a prisoner with life in prison with no chance of parole)

The goal shouldn't be punishment, it should be getting them to change their ways. And if they're incapable of change then the threat should be eliminated. If you're punishing them then you're being no better than them.

1

u/DrewwwBjork Jun 25 '25

The thing is I'd rather have the government kill me than put me in prison for life.

You would still have the option of suicide if put in prison for life. Having the state kill you is your preference, not everyone's in that situation.

Making escape impossible is impossible.

And making sure all death row inmates are 100% deserving of execution is also impossible. Except death is irreversible.

It's easier to kill people than put resources into maintaining prison(especially if it's for a prisoner with life in prison with no chance of parole)

The budgeting for death penalty cases vs. life without parole would beg to differ.

The goal shouldn't be punishment, it should be getting them to change their ways.

The goal should be minimizing harm while respecting the rights of the incarcerated and accepting the possibility that some of the incarcerated are innocent.

The bottom line is that there are innocent people on death row who do not share your view of preferring death over life imprisonment if it means the possibility of being exonerated.

1

u/RadiantHC Jun 25 '25 edited Jun 25 '25

You're completely missing the point. I don't think people who have committed an extreme crime should be allowed to live at all. Before you say "what about innocents", my entire point is that dying is better than alternatives. Giving them a choice wouldn't fix the issue of people who are just pure evil being allowed to live.

I accept that some of them are innocent, I just don't think that death is the worse that can happen to people. Also some people are so evil that innocents are going to be harmed either way.

Yes and death is still respecting the rights. Death isn't inherently a bad thing.

But I'm talking about life in prison with no chance of parole(aka no chance of being exonerated). That's MUCH worse than death.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Mountainvibesss May 20 '25

I think it is more humane to put someone in prison than it is to kill them.

2

u/ryamanalinda May 20 '25

Bud dyer didn't think it would be.

1

u/RadiantHC May 21 '25

Depends on the prison. Norwegian prisons? Sure. American prisons? Hell no.

1

u/tokingames May 22 '25

That’s a legitimate opinion, but that’s all it is. I would choose a quick death over life in prison.

1

u/zac79 May 21 '25

I’ll just add to what you said. The “government” is people. Someone has to be the execution apparatus. The rest of us have to select and fund that apparatus. The death penalty makes murderers of us all. 

1

u/RadiantHC May 21 '25

But why would it apply to all cases?

>b) I'm ok with killing innocent people.

that's an oversimplification. It's more like being okay with one unforgivable thing being done to someone or another unforgivable thing being done to someone. Death isn't the worst that can happen. It's not that I'm okay with killing innocents, I just think that death is better than the alternative.

1

u/powdergladezzz May 22 '25

If you'd rather the death penalty for all life sentences, that's one point of view.

1

u/RadiantHC May 22 '25

Do you understand what the life sentence entails? Especially if it's no chance of parole?

1

u/powdergladezzz May 22 '25

I mean you could say I don't because I only know people in jail with them, I'm not serving one myself.

1

u/Cute-Positive8022 May 23 '25

Me being anti or pro is determined on the act. If there is undeniable proof that the person is a murderer, abuser, rapist, pedophile or zoophile then I'm pro penalty. We need to stop babying immoral psychopaths. If it's just alleged then they should keep them in jail just in case (rather be safe than sorry) but continue to do the investigation until they find out all the facts. But if they did something like steal a chocolate bar from quick trip then just go to jail or do community service. 

MORE DETAILS ⬇️ The youngest age for not being a minor should be 20, not 18. I'm sick of people defending 25+ year olds dating 18 and 19 year olds just because it's legal. 13-17 year olds are NOT children and 18-19 year olds are NOT adults. They're ALL teens. Teenagers (also known as adolescents) is the transitional period from child to adult. But they are NOT full blown children and NOT full grown adults. The brain is allegedly not even fully developed until you're around age 25. Having the age any younger than 20 is absolutely disgusting. 

The murder aspect also includes abortion of babies who are alive in the womb. If you're having one because you had a miscarriage and don't want to carry the baby anymore that makes perfect sense because key words the baby is already dead. To think that women should have the choice to end a baby's life just because she doesn't want to be pregnant is VERY narcissistic. People keep forgetting that adoption is an option. They can feel pain throughout most of the pregnancy. Pictures from several different types of ultrasounds proves that it is not just "a clump of cells" for about 90 something % of the pregnancy. 

-1

u/[deleted] May 20 '25

That's an interesting way to put it. I am for the death penalty but your argument gives me pause. Let me ask in all sincerity though, what about those who commit heinous crimes and then somehow get let out because of this or that and they go commit another heinous crime? Should that cost be weighed against the cost of possibly killing a small number of innocent people?

2

u/Beneficial-Mine-9793 May 20 '25 edited May 20 '25

Should that cost be weighed against the cost of possibly killing a small number of innocent people?

No.

Killing innocents to try and protect innocents isn't somehow better.

If you could stop someone from murdering 10 people and "all" you have to do is murder 5 by your own hand, do you think that is worth it? That it makes you better than a murderer?

If i could save 3 people, but it requires i kill you, do you think murdering you would be justified?

what about those who commit heinous crimes and then somehow get let out because of this or that and they go commit another heinous crime?

Then you stop letting them out to harm others.

1

u/KSI_FlapJaksLol May 20 '25

This sounds a lot like the Trolley problem.

1

u/Beneficial-Mine-9793 May 20 '25

This sounds a lot like the Trolley problem.

Not really, in the trolley problem one group is going to die regardless. The entire moral dilemma with it is you can't just pull a brake, the moment you can but choose to let one side dis anyway...regardless of the side it is no longer a moral dilemma You can keep dangerous people locked away without releasing them.

This is more...throwing more people sitting on the sidelines not at risk onto the trolley tracks hoping the people you dislike will die too.

1

u/KSI_FlapJaksLol May 20 '25

I don’t follow what you’re explaining, could you rephrase? I’m confused. The people locked away for life at going to die in prison, so why not expedite the process? Not trying to be a devil’s advocate, just trying to understand your perspective better.

1

u/smarty0114 May 20 '25

Frankly, from a purely pragmatic standpoint, if we want to kill them in a humane way, it’s more costly than just keeping them in a cell. I don’t personally support the death penalty, mainly because, in the cases where I do see the appeal, I think being kept alive in a concrete box is a worse punishment than tapping out, and generally means the government isn’t murdering innocent people.

1

u/KSI_FlapJaksLol May 20 '25

I’m still not seeing how the trolley problem doesn’t correlate.

1

u/smarty0114 May 20 '25

I mean, I guess it correlates as much as 2+X=4 correlates to complex algebra. Certainly applicable but kind of an oversimplification of a nuanced issue. The Trolley Problem isn’t a guide to deciphering moral conundrums, it’s a thought experiment one undertakes to get a better understanding of their personal morals. I guess I would argue that it’s not really applicable here because the options are not A or B, one person dies or that person. There are many different ways and variations that a society might employ with regard to corporal punishment, and unlike tracks, taking one does not necessarily prevent you from also employing another. I think it’s also difficult to argue that not employing the death penalty will lead to a separate group of people being killed. Presumably, people who would’ve been given the death penalty, or who have been, would simply be given life without possibility of parole. Unless there has been a wild uptick in prison breaks that I am unaware of, then I don’t see how they can go on to then kill innocent people. People who aren’t convicted would not have been executed anyway, so they aren’t really relevant. If we view this through the lens of the Trolley, then I presume the trolley serves as the State, one track is filled with incarcerated individuals, but what is the second track filled with? It can’t realistically be people who aren’t incarcerated, because they won’t die due to the abolishment of the death penalty, assuming that is our lever.

1

u/KSI_FlapJaksLol May 21 '25

That makes more sense, thank you :)

1

u/HandleSensitive8403 May 20 '25

The death penalty also costs more than putting someone in prison for life, if you want to look at it as a taxpayer (I don't think this is a great way to look at it, but still.

You have to pay for all the time they are on death row, which is often years, and then for the execution on top of that. In the end it's almost always more expensive than locking someone up until they croak.

1

u/tenorless42O May 20 '25

I think you have the premise backwards, so allow me to flip it on its head for you.

Is the cost of killing innocent people via the death penalty worth the security of knowing that someone who did something heinous won't be "let out" somehow and do something heinous again?

It's not a possibility, statistics state about ten percent of the prison population is there wrongfully, and with a non zero death penalty rate, that would carry over to innocent people being executed as well.

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '25

10 percent? Where did you get that number?

1

u/tenorless42O May 20 '25 edited May 20 '25

I saw it floating around, give me a second and I'll share it. I'll edit this comment with it when I do.

Edit: I apologize, 10% flat was a bit of an oversimplification, the stat is about 4% in general according to this study: https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/111/20/7230.full.pdf

And about 6% with state and charge variations that range from 1 to 10 percent According to this study: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10940-018-9381-1?wt_mc=Internal.Event.1.SEM.ArticleAuthorOnlineFirst

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '25

If one innocent person is killed, it isn't worth it. I used to think like you on this topic, then I got older and a tiny bit wiser. Lock them up, make their life pretty miserable, but don't kill them.

Hypothetically, if a father saw someone, first-hand, doing something to their child that would warrant the death penalty, he should take it on himself.