In 2010, 58 countries had the death penalty. The. U.S. had the FIFTH highest execution rate, 52 people. I am completely against the death penalty, but even if you are for it, is it possible for 52 people to do something so terrible that they no longer have the right to exist?!
Touchy subject, but here's my opinion- Taking someones life can't be undone. That person ceases to exist and you have shortened their time on earth, effectively taking control of their fate. Not to mention the other lives it impacts stemming from the victim. If you kill someone, you should be killed as well. Not for the sake of deterring future crimes, but because it's just the right thing to do. If the person you killed can't go on living their life, you shouldn't be able to either.
Too many murderers have either escaped from custody or been paroled and went on to muder again, not to mention the murders of inmates by inmates while in prison. These examples may not be what you had in mind, but execution deters these people from committing any further crimes and is 100% effective in this context.
maybe if we tortured the criminals instead of just killing them. that would scare criminals more than death. especially if they're religious. but then again, we'd be opening a whole big can of worms. we misewell just have gladiators again
I agree to some extent, however, if the deterrence argument is used only to extend the death penalty sentence as far as they would morally support, then it would not alter the original end result. For example, if a murderer is on trial and some people think he should be executed, they may use deterrance as a means of propelling the argument forward. But I don't think that it would go so far as to change who they think should be put to death, and make that the sole reason they are executed.
Hmmm. Doesn't the whole concept of society rest on individuals and minorities having to make sacrifices for the common good? And doesn't that sometimes have to go so far as dying? Nowhere apart from death penalty deterrence is this idea so baldly stated, but it's still true.
I do think that the direct act of taking someone's life for the benefit of society is too extreme and dehumanising for us gentle modernfolk, but I wouldn't call it 'evil'. Just out of date.
The death penalty should be reserved for serious and dangerous repeat offenders and for those whose crimes are so abhorrent that they cannot be forgiven. It should not be used as a deterent or even as a punishment, but simply to erase these individuals.
The death penalty does NOT deter future crime, however, i do believe society has an obligation to place value on a victim's life by sentencing his or her murderer to death. The death penalty should be restricted to the worst of the worst in society.
My only issue with this video is: Can't it be both? People who get the death penalty (with very few exceptions) have done something horrific to deserve it. If our society allows the death penalty as a penalty, why not use it as a deterrence as well? If they deserve death for their crimes in the first place, why not make an example out of them?
@CDubSD Because its based on flawed logic. The idea of killing someone for committing the act of murder is counterintuitive, by that logic, not only should criminal die, but then the guy that flips the switch should die, then the guy who flips his switch should, and so on and so forth. Nevertheless, whether or not one cares about logic, the fact is that giving the government the authority to execute civilians in any capacity is a dangerous, dangerous concept.
@CDubSD Because its based on flawed logic. The idea of killing someone for committing the act of murder is counterintuitive, by that logic, not only should criminal die, but then the guy that flips the switch should die, then the guy who flips his switch should, and so on and so forth. Nevertheless, whether or not one cares about logic, the fact is that giving the government the authority to execute civilians in any capacity is a dangerous, dangerous concept.
@fullclip16117 My logic isn't flawed. The executioner is not committing a crime. In your example, the crime the execution would be committing is murder. Yet murder is the "UNLAWFUL killing of a human being with malice". The executioner is not unlawfully killing the death row inmate, but rather is following the law.
Furthermore, it isn't the government with the authority to execute civilians since its the civilians who serve on jury panels and make the decision regarding the death penalty.
@fullclip16117 you have a very good point. The act of killing someone BECAUSE they killed someone is terrible and heartless. The people who believe in an eye for an eye have probably never really looked into it. We need more people like you in the world. I hope you are/will become involved in an organization to abolish the death penalty.
Deterrence is irrelevant. The penalty of death is exercised after someone is found to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Ergo, the punishment is for that individual alone. For that death sentence to "deter" someone else from committing a crime is meaningless. Either a person will or will not do something. Then the person will be judged on what they did. It's pretty simple, I dunno why people want to make it more complex, there's no reason for that.
Wow, good argument Joe Felice. Wished you had made this video a year ago when I was debating this in my Speech class.
I had come to this conclusion only just a little awhile ago, deterrence is quite frankly something very hideous. I wish people saw the third option like this more often.
The only way you can say either way that the death penalty is a deterent is to have 2 identical countries with the same people in it and same neighbourhoods. One would HAVE the death penalty and would NOT have penalty. Only then could you proove one way or another if the daeath penalty was a deterant
Though he has a very valid point, I'd like to interject and say that his statement "only one can be right" isn't exactly correct. In general there is no right, wrong, good or bad... The only things that have meaning are those which we gave meaning to. So both are equally correct, and equally incorrect. Beyond that, good video =]
i agree with the death penalty. not for the benefit of society or as a deterrent for a potential murderer. but if some one takes a life he or she must be prepared to lose theirs. and not for society's sake but the sake of the family of the victim. if one of my family members where killed i would take small comfort that the killer is not enjoying life, even if it would be in a jail cell.
my friend was killed over xmas. hes death has hit my friends hard. my view is why should his killers be let to live? BUT i dont agree whit da death of the British guy xecuted for drug smuggling in china. he is a criminal and he should b punished but is death right for what he did? bout taking my own revenge, my revenge will b Cing them punished in the eyes of the law. wotevr the punishment they diside to give out. it not my place to seak revenge rather leve it for the state to give da punishment
i agree with joe. i believe in an eye for an eye (only with proof, dna if need be and if there is no true insanity) but i generally support the death penalty, not as deterance, but rather individual case. if someone, knowingly goes and massacre's people, then should he be brought to justice, he should be killed. i don't celebrate anyone dying, but it is justice, in my view anyway. drugs or other things should not be punishable by death.
@MrQuestionAuthority people go trough things and develop from one moment to the next so you never know if they will be a repeat offender or a changed man
The Death Penalty is a deterrent, that's why criminals avoid houses where they think the owners have guns. They think they might get killed engaging in a criminal act there so they don't.
It's usefulness as a deterrent in the US has been watered down because liberals overrule the will of the people on this issue and make it nearly impossible for killers to be killed. So, criminals don't really expect to die for murder. It rarely happens. In California, they're on Death Row for 20 yrs +.
Liberals like to throw up endless roadblocks to the execution of convicted murderers...and then use the roadblocks, time delays, money wasted, lessening of deterrence value they created as reasons to be against the death penalty. Since the people always vote that we should have a death penalty for murderers, they do an end run around the people's will by drawing out the time frame from conviction to execution, then they say the 20 yr process is too costly so we shouldn't have a death penalty.
Deterrence of future murders by usage of the Death Penalty will begin to increase when we start executing convicted murderers within a year of their conviction.
Like when, murderers will actually expect to be killed when they murder.
The murder rate by the way has gone way down over the last couple decades, as the country's recoiled from the soft on crime insanity of the late 60's 70's. Even Clin"toon" was fairly tough on crime.
I didn't reply to his bogus rationale against deterrence, just wrote about the merits/liberal imposed limits of deterrence in general. You don't expect me to watch the whole video before putting in my two cents on CommenTube do you?
His argument against deterrence in the second half is bad. We don't kill people to deter future murders as the primary benefit, it's a side benefit that naturally occurs. If we executed for the primary reason of deterrence that would be wrong. We don't.
@RuflessRecords whe you are at a point were you could kill someone you don't care i would even venture to say that a year until death would be an incentive
Look here. My sister was murdered when she was 18. Fuck deterrence. What about justice? The Lord said we should take murderers outside the city gates and stone them. To send them to him and let him sort them out. So I dont care if it deters anyone or not. I care about them paying the price for the life they took. I dont expect you to understand.
The US government per capital kills more people then any other industrialized nation in the world
the prison system it self is racist, inflated, and obsolete, it does not rehabilitate anyone, prisons are only good for corporations who want to make products just as cheap as in china but put made in US on it.
the prison system is wrong. and killing people makes the system look worse.
Thankfully you'll never be in any position of authority. You know the way you can't tell the difference between humans and animals, that's a big problem.
see with dogs not allot of thought go into their actions,more instinct or reactionary reflex. however a human does or should have the ability to reason and once that is gone they no longer are a part of the human race but a new member of the animal kingdom. and in my earlier comment should be put down.
I was actually sad that my dog was put down but it had to be done to protect my kids and neighbors. that last sentence points out the difference between a liberal and a clear thinking individual. all about personal responsibility. not societies fault my dog turned viscous it just happened. now my kids are safe and one less problem in this world to deal with
The amazing thing is that those on the LEFT that so vehemently oppose the death penalty of a guilty murder are the ones that support the abortion of millions of innocent yet to be born babies.
I believe that if you are sentenced to life without parole, then you should automaticaly recieve the death penalty. if we have to have a goverment as involved as we do now, than i do not want said goverment wasting thier money on life nessities to someone in a prisn for life.
If I was convicted of murder and given a choice of life in prison without parole or the death penalty, I would 100% choose the death penalty. I would much rather die then rot in prison for the next 60 years. So I guess I believe in the opposite of deterrence, the death penalty seems to benefit the prisoner even more than the public, because in that situation, in my opinion, dying is much much better than living.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it costs money to keep prisoners alive. And I'm not saying that money is the driving factor, but if a prisoner is a huge threat to society (murdering, raping, injuring prison guards or fellow prisoners), then yes, I think his existence is a waste of taxpayer dollars and society would benefit from his death. But I haven't crunched the numbers... it's just a thought.
The "sham" is the criminal justice system that fails to convict real criminals, and executes innocent men. While this is a sham....we must not execute any more innnocent men.
@Hereticbooks one pistol with a full clip is alot cheaper than all those wheat bread cheese and bologna sandwiches they give you in jail where is all this money going not to house keeping thats for damn sure
You have an amazing ability to argue something in a way that I have never thought about before. I confess I had to watch this twice before it really sunk in, but when it did I realized that you are exactly right on this. Unfortunately, I think more people are for the death penalty on grounds of punishment or retribution and not deterrence. This definitely takes some of the wind out of their sails though...
I believe that it has nothing to do with deterrence coz both Death and a miserable life behind bars could work as deterrent.
I believe that a person who deprives another from his or her life deserves to have their life taken away too.
Who am I to say that the life of the criminal is worth sparing, while the life of the victim (who could be someone's parent or child or loved one) is to be wasted for nothing.
Many innocent people have died through the use of the "death penalty." That's enough reason to get rid of it. Let's face it...the criminal justice system in this country is flawed...SERIOUSLY flawed. It's a game. Prosecutors are out for blood in order to launch their political careers. It doesn't matter whether a person is guilty or innocent. It's about each side desiring to "win." Poor, minority, or otherwise disadvantaged convicts are far more likely to be "put to death."
I think A LOT MORE innocent people (wives, husbands, daughters, sons) have died at the hands of murderers. I think that is enough reason to enact the death penalty.
so you're saying that it's so important to kill criminals that it's alright if occasionally we kill an innocent person? That it's a matter of numbers? I feel that it's more important that the "state" NEVER kill an innocent person, and therefore the death penalty has to go.
Then may the gods forbit that any member of your family just happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and is convicted of a heinous crime they didn't do. I suppose what it comes down to, is whether a civilisation believes that it's more important to punish convicts, or to rehabilitate, when possible, or at the very least remove dangerous members of the human family from said society so they can't harm again.
Lol and the chance of that happening is how much? There is more of a chance of one of my family members being murdered. You are one of those people who dont live in reality.
@Hereticbooks i think a society that was into rehabilation would start the rehab long before the crimes started they(the rehab society in my head) would probably be so advanced they would be like star wars with free beer
I dont even think that there should be a question about death penalty. Maybe the reason its hard to come to a conclusion is because our court system is so screwed up.
i think they need to fix the death penalty system. it takes people years of being on death row to be killed, so they need to speed it up. people complain about not having enough room in the prisons, so kill the bastards that raped/murdered innocent people. keeping them in jail for 80 years might make them suffer more, but then you wont have room for the guy that robbed a store, and you need to spend millions building a new sector of the jail.
there isnt enough rooms in prison because there are A LOT of people who are in for stupid reasons... rapist, killers, robbers get off all the time but someone who violates parol by comming home 10 min late or someone who was caught with weed is put in prison... not jail but prison taking up space... is it a crime? yes, but if there is no room then the ones who need parol dont get it while the ones who shouldnt go get off... technicallities and corrupt justice system... its disgusting
I used to be in favor of the death penalty. Now I absolutely oppose it.
I think your argument that deterrence is evil is excellent and persuasive and I've never heard it before.
My objection is religious. I believe in the immortality of the soul and in redemption, so I believe that we do not have the right to steal the opportunity of repentance from anyone regardless of what they've done.
We only have the right to protect ourselves. With our prisons, We no longer have to kill to do that.
its all well and good to say u dont belive in the death penalty, that is until one of your family or friends is killed for no reason. i think that person if proven guilty should be killed or if you molest a child.
i do not believe in the death penalty for two reasons.... 1- people cannot play God... there are too many young, accidental, crazy deaths in this world and if God did not want to take this person there was a reason... 2- death is the easy way out.... let him suffer
1) What about the person killing other people? Aren't they playing God? 2) And what about all our tax dollars paying for murderer's and rapist's food and extracurricular activities?
1- they are and its wrong but 2 wrongs dont make a right 2- food should be bare minimum and i feel no extracurricular activities are needed.... lock him up... keep him surviving.... not possible but still would not want him in the streets and would not want to kill him neither so its worth it... if it wasnt going there it would be going into the pockets of political giants
I'm not trying to debate with you, but I think that letting them live would be the easy way out. Depending on what you believe, I believe that they would go to hell and suffer like they never would here on earth.
hell is earth and not saying i do or do not believe in heaven and hell.... i do but at the same time idk if it REALLY exist or not.... i like to believe it so the good can prosper and the bad can suffer but for all i know people can just go POOF and thats it when they die.... when its his time... its his time..... we are no one to decide or judge whether someone lives or dies
dont you think you will suffer too one day since you are technically commiting a sin by judging and deciding someones death just like the killer did? to clarify i am not saying u are going to hell or anything, im just wondering your view, the road goes two ways and i find it very hypocritical to punish someone for commiting a crime by commiting the crime again. i am no better than u and u are no better than me. God knows what is in your heart, only He can judge
Well, from my point of view, saying that someone will go to Hell for something like that comes from my faith. And the Bible also says "an eye for an eye" which means that someone who kills someone should be killed too. Its fair. I dont think anyone is committing a sin for giving someone the consequence they deserve. I mean, if someone killed my mom, who did nothing, I would want them to be put to death. That is my opinion.
the Bible also says He who is without sin cast the first stone.... and teaches not to judge others because judgement day will come for you too... it also teaches forgiveness
So, if we punish anyone for anything, does that mean we are judging them and that we are without sin because we dare to judge them? What about children? Should we not punish them for things they do wrong because they will inevitably pay for their sins "one" day? I dont see the logic in that.
I was comparing the act of "judging" people and people being punished. But if you want to talk about kids, there are a ton of people who rape and murder kids and you dont think that we have the right to put them to death.
no... i think they should rot in prison.... i been there and done that and i have forgiven... no i havent forgotten but i have forgivin and i am not without sin..;.. i am not an angel or anything close to it and i think its wrong to take another humans life no matter what it is.... put that mutha fucker in a box and feed him bread water and boiled eggs... enough to sustain because he/she does not deserve the luxuries of life but death is the easy way out
Ok, but they dont feed them crackers and water. They feed them better food than what is served in schools. And they dont rot in a box. They are allowed TV and sports and other things to do with their time.. which you and me pay for. If someone killed my brother, mom, dad etc. I would not want to pay to keep them alive. But, alas, we dont all feel that way.
i understand your stand point and i respect and to a degree agree with your reasoning... i dont think they deserve the good treatment they get in prison... but if i had to choose i would rather than than kill another.... yes i would probably be the first to die in a horror movie :)... great convo.... ****SUBSCRIBED**** and im getting my camera for christmas and will be starting shows after... subscribe to me and if u dont like my show u can always unsubscribe later
yes... either that or its going to the pockets of political giants anyway... the entire justice system is screwed up and there are guily people who get let off due to technicality and people who dont commit as bad crimes who are in prison for years.... in my opinion, i will not agree with killing as a solution to killing.... thats like saying well you just dropped orange soda on my floor, well im going dip this mop in more orange soda and attempt to clean it up... all u got now is a sticky floor
thank you for bringing this into perspective. Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong? Death penalty is WRONG. We humans are not capable of making descisions as to end another human's life.
"You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Matthew 5:3839
Yes, if someone kills your mom, let them kill your dad too! Heck, let them kill your sister and your brother and then you too! Sure, that is exactly what that verse is referring to. Not.
That's exactly what I meant. Or I could have been pointing out that selectively choosing bible passages to justify your desire for revenge is old hat.
Incarcerate violent criminals. That protects society. There is no need to kill them. And we do not have the right. We need to hold the moral high ground.
If our justice system is flawed enough that it may let guilty people go free, it is flawed enough to execute innocents as well.
Well I agree with you on a few things. But the problem is not that our system is flawed, it is that over the years, there has been a decline in consequences for people's actions. You can see it everywhere in our society. We care more about not hurting people's feelings.
I have to say i do agree with the deterrence of the death penalty, and her is why
(now this reason would have to be under certain reasons, because i do agree that you should not die for the sins of others, but honestly if you kill someone out of cold blood, not manslughter or anything like that, but consious murder then... well you deserve to die)
Also the amount of money it would save the prisons for food for inmates that are there for murder would be huge. Less money towards prisons is good
i'm pretty sure the money saved on food for the few that are executed would not be 'huge'.. i've actually read results of a few studies that found the cost of capital trail appeals that those on death row use & their execution are way more expensive than life w/ no parole.. that's fine to have your opinion, but the cost argument actually isn't on your side in this case.
hmm. . . i have to agree that it is morally reprehensible to kill one person for the sins of others, as he said in the video. and i would like to make the comment that the same morally backwards concept is the basis for christianity. that is all.
i dont trust a state or higher government to have the capacity of ending a captive human being's life- because i do not believe any justice system is perfect enough to do that without error. resulting in the ultimate and irreversible error. if you think about it, it should be the conservative argument..but most are too deluded to realize that.
I don't agree with deterrence, but I do think it is a valid argument. We're not talking about killing individuals post facto, we are talking about enacting laws that potential criminals know about. It is the law that is the deterrent, not the act of execution.
I think life imprisonment is sufficient because I don't think punishment works at all. We just need to remove violent individuals from society. Death is far too permanent and can not be undone when and if new evidence comes to light.
Agreed. Some people deserve to die, but not for a deterrent. If you end someone's life and if it had malicious intent behind it then yes you should be killed. Plus if we also include 3strikers then we can get rid of the excess prison population. I think some crimes should have the death penalty as a deterrent like how about AIG, Enron, and other executives who have defrauded the government for billions of $'s. I mean that would save the government trillions.
I don't think there is a single person who accepts or rejects the death penalty based on deterrence. They may use it to support their stance on the issue, but I've never met a person who used that as their big gun.
It's also not the important question. The important question is the one you danced about, touching but never grabbing, which is whether or not the death penalty is the right thing to do. I'm not interested in effectiveness; justice is the vital burden.
Wow you truly didn't understand the point he was trying to get across. Which is. There is no answer to the question "is the death penalty the right thing to do?" There is only opinion. All he was doing in this video was point out that a deterrence is wrong on the issue.
That's a bunch of sop. Yes, it's all opinion, but only because the answer is debatable, but that is absolutely not to say that we shouldn't argue it. I understood the point, and I reject it as a question wrongly asked, not to mention irrelevant in the face of the bigger question. Sometimes people try to take different tacks on an issue in hopes that it will be more interesting; in this case it was not.
The spending per death-row inmate is almost THREE TIMES the amount spent on other inmates. the current death-row census totals 685, but because of legal issues only 13 have been executed since 1977. This is compared to the 71 death-row fatalities from other causes.
There are quite a few arguments for and against the death penalty. My personal "favourite" is the argument that it will save tax payers some money by putting criminals to death instead of throwing them into an overcrowded prison system. Although that may be true, in my opinion it is still inherently evil, as you so eloquently put it.
That's not true, the spending per death-row inmate is almost THREE TIMES the amount spent on other inmates. the current death-row census totals 685, but because of legal issues only 13 have been executed since 1977. This is compared to the 71 death-row fatalities from other causes.
Well, although I was being sarcastic when I said it was my favourite argument, I think for the most part they are arguing for fewer appeal procedures (which of course is unconstitutional), and therefore a shorter waiting period.
Great points! I haven't really thought about this very much, so thanks for sharing your opinion. :) I always thought that most serial killers wouldn't be deterred by other murderers dying, because they are sick. They would know about the consequences, but it wouldn't help them to repress their urges.
I feel that if I was in their position, the choice of either getting sent to jail for the rest of my entire life, or dying then I would most likely rather die than suffer through years in that place. So even though it does cost money to keep them there, I believe its a greater punishment. Great point Joe.
Personally, I have no problem with the death penalty. I believe it would be a pretty sufficient method of "weeding the gardens of humanity" so to speak, if our justice system were more foolproof about who is convicted in the first place.
"The arguement that society will benefit" as you said ... can be manipulated to justify just about anything, (and our government manipulates it constantly, for exactly that reason), so on the subject of deterrence, I totally agree with you, Joe. It's bull. :D
Why waste taxpayer money keeping sick serial killers alive? I don't think the death penalty will deter people from killing, but I don't think keeping someone alive if they took the life or lives of innocent people is logical. To me, they are just scum.. Period. Some people deserve to have their lives ended. And I also believe they should only receive the death sentence if it is absolutely proven that they actually killed someone.
well, I don't agree that the death penelty fix's anything really...and it is kinda pointless! It's not up to us to say whether someone should die or not anyway
you make a very valid point joe and me personally i honestly believe in what actually happened. in a court of law in the united states its not really about what really happened its about what you can prove, if we could refrain from what you can prove and goto what actually happened(which is a difficult task in itself) then the death penalty would make more sense.
What he's saying is that the reason that these politicians are pushing the death penalty is that they want it to deter other convicts from committing heinous crimes. He believes to take a life for the reason to stop others from committing crimes is faulty reasoning. It is also morally and ethically incorrect. I agree completely. Great vid.
I usually find your arguments very compelling, but I must be missing something here. I am absolutely against the death penalty. That said, I actually have a lot of respect for a friend of mine who thinks killing someone is deplorable, but--because he firmly believes the data saying that it IS a deterrence--it's worth it in order to save the other lives that would otherwise be lost. I actually think it's a reasonable argument and you failed to convince me otherwise. Wanna give it another try?
Death penalty will never be just. There are more people involved than the person accused of murder. I am thinking about surrounding family, such as mother, girlfriend/boyfriend, children and friends.
The state cannot prohibit killing and then indulge in executing citizens. No country can join the EU without abolishing the death penalty. If you commit a crime you obviously don't intend to be caught you intend to get away, so deterrence doesn't come into your plan. They also slaughter a lot of innocent people so how is that undone? Execute the state maybe.
Joey, you crazy bastard , who the hell gives 3 shits about the death penalty? Why don't you talk about how Barack Obama is a USELESS, LYING, Mother Fucker and how this "CHANGE" we voted for has turned into a big pile of shit. Why don't you talk about how this "Health Care" bill is screwing us all by the day. Why don't you talk about how the only promise Obama kept is to KILL more of our beloved troops and innocent civilians in a UNwinnable war in Afghanistan.Say something you coward.
If you murder, you should be wiped off the planet, you are not allowed to destroy life you did not create, if you think it's ok to take a life you don't deserve to walk on this planet with all the rest of the billions of people who don't do it because we know it's wrong.
For me at least, life in prison always seemed worse than the death penalty. With the death penalty its over with death. With life in prison every day would be as good as it would ever get, awful!
Also, I believe studies have shown if more cost effective to incarcerate someone for life than to put them to death. With the amount of money spent on lawyers and appeals.
My best friends brother got life... he was so upset and distraught, he was innocent and didn't know what to do. If he got the death penalty he might be dead right now instead of out with his family. They found evidence later on and he was proven innocent of all wrong doings.
hey joe, my answere is too long so im sending it to you in a personal message
almost allways i come up with the same conclusions that you come up to (yes, i came up with my coclusions before knowing this blog...read my response when you have the time....thanks
A punishment with a deterrent effect is more moral then one without. Say you gave people money as a punishment for stealing. That would be an immoral law as it encourages breaking the law.
All punishments should have a deterrent effect, if not, it is a pointless law.
I love your videos Joe, but in this case I have to disagree with you. The issue of deterrence does have a place in this discussion. Deterrence itself is not justification to kill anyone, but a detailed analysis of this issue must take it into account. If true, it would be a positive externality of the death penalty and would provide a pragmatic reason for it. If you believe that killing murderers is morally fine but wonder if it is the best policy overall, the question of deterrence is important
In 2010, 58 countries had the death penalty. The. U.S. had the FIFTH highest execution rate, 52 people. I am completely against the death penalty, but even if you are for it, is it possible for 52 people to do something so terrible that they no longer have the right to exist?!
garland531 1 year ago
Touchy subject, but here's my opinion- Taking someones life can't be undone. That person ceases to exist and you have shortened their time on earth, effectively taking control of their fate. Not to mention the other lives it impacts stemming from the victim. If you kill someone, you should be killed as well. Not for the sake of deterring future crimes, but because it's just the right thing to do. If the person you killed can't go on living their life, you shouldn't be able to either.
urnot4me69 1 year ago
Too many murderers have either escaped from custody or been paroled and went on to muder again, not to mention the murders of inmates by inmates while in prison. These examples may not be what you had in mind, but execution deters these people from committing any further crimes and is 100% effective in this context.
tripleJ1955 1 year ago
maybe if we tortured the criminals instead of just killing them. that would scare criminals more than death. especially if they're religious. but then again, we'd be opening a whole big can of worms. we misewell just have gladiators again
drummingdude2007 1 year ago
I agree to some extent, however, if the deterrence argument is used only to extend the death penalty sentence as far as they would morally support, then it would not alter the original end result. For example, if a murderer is on trial and some people think he should be executed, they may use deterrance as a means of propelling the argument forward. But I don't think that it would go so far as to change who they think should be put to death, and make that the sole reason they are executed.
babybluecebu 1 year ago
Hmmm. Doesn't the whole concept of society rest on individuals and minorities having to make sacrifices for the common good? And doesn't that sometimes have to go so far as dying? Nowhere apart from death penalty deterrence is this idea so baldly stated, but it's still true.
I do think that the direct act of taking someone's life for the benefit of society is too extreme and dehumanising for us gentle modernfolk, but I wouldn't call it 'evil'. Just out of date.
bexter2001 1 year ago
The death penalty should be reserved for serious and dangerous repeat offenders and for those whose crimes are so abhorrent that they cannot be forgiven. It should not be used as a deterent or even as a punishment, but simply to erase these individuals.
30Galleons 1 year ago
The death penalty does NOT deter future crime, however, i do believe society has an obligation to place value on a victim's life by sentencing his or her murderer to death. The death penalty should be restricted to the worst of the worst in society.
Dani9901 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Life in prison is an alternative to the death penalty.
jasonrtaylor 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Life in prsion is an alternative to the death penalty.
jasonrtaylor 1 year ago
I'm not to smart on this subject, but I thought the whole death penalty deterrent concept was to stop repeat offenders.
arcticf0x8 2 years ago
My only issue with this video is: Can't it be both? People who get the death penalty (with very few exceptions) have done something horrific to deserve it. If our society allows the death penalty as a penalty, why not use it as a deterrence as well? If they deserve death for their crimes in the first place, why not make an example out of them?
CDubSD 2 years ago
@CDubSD Because its based on flawed logic. The idea of killing someone for committing the act of murder is counterintuitive, by that logic, not only should criminal die, but then the guy that flips the switch should die, then the guy who flips his switch should, and so on and so forth. Nevertheless, whether or not one cares about logic, the fact is that giving the government the authority to execute civilians in any capacity is a dangerous, dangerous concept.
fullclip16117 1 year ago
@CDubSD Because its based on flawed logic. The idea of killing someone for committing the act of murder is counterintuitive, by that logic, not only should criminal die, but then the guy that flips the switch should die, then the guy who flips his switch should, and so on and so forth. Nevertheless, whether or not one cares about logic, the fact is that giving the government the authority to execute civilians in any capacity is a dangerous, dangerous concept.
fullclip16117 1 year ago
@fullclip16117 My logic isn't flawed. The executioner is not committing a crime. In your example, the crime the execution would be committing is murder. Yet murder is the "UNLAWFUL killing of a human being with malice". The executioner is not unlawfully killing the death row inmate, but rather is following the law.
Furthermore, it isn't the government with the authority to execute civilians since its the civilians who serve on jury panels and make the decision regarding the death penalty.
CDubSD 1 year ago
@fullclip16117 you have a very good point. The act of killing someone BECAUSE they killed someone is terrible and heartless. The people who believe in an eye for an eye have probably never really looked into it. We need more people like you in the world. I hope you are/will become involved in an organization to abolish the death penalty.
garland531 1 year ago
@AbsurdKrapp rofl they also have amesterdamn im going to cash my paycheck in euros can i crash at your house
NUMBLIFEUSA 2 years ago
Deterrence is irrelevant. The penalty of death is exercised after someone is found to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Ergo, the punishment is for that individual alone. For that death sentence to "deter" someone else from committing a crime is meaningless. Either a person will or will not do something. Then the person will be judged on what they did. It's pretty simple, I dunno why people want to make it more complex, there's no reason for that.
canisdormit 2 years ago
@canisdormit i think your point is solid it make me want to look deeper into the sanctity of human life or just life in general
NUMBLIFEUSA 2 years ago
Wow, good argument Joe Felice. Wished you had made this video a year ago when I was debating this in my Speech class.
I had come to this conclusion only just a little awhile ago, deterrence is quite frankly something very hideous. I wish people saw the third option like this more often.
Metroid02099 2 years ago
The only way you can say either way that the death penalty is a deterent is to have 2 identical countries with the same people in it and same neighbourhoods. One would HAVE the death penalty and would NOT have penalty. Only then could you proove one way or another if the daeath penalty was a deterant
hermankatnip 2 years ago
Totally Agree~
lahnabea 2 years ago
Apparently,no one that you know or loved has been murdered.
shiddy67 2 years ago
Apparently, no one that you know or love has been executed.
EddieAndHisTeddy 2 years ago
@EddieAndHisTeddy eddie did they lynch your teddy
NUMBLIFEUSA 2 years ago
Though he has a very valid point, I'd like to interject and say that his statement "only one can be right" isn't exactly correct. In general there is no right, wrong, good or bad... The only things that have meaning are those which we gave meaning to. So both are equally correct, and equally incorrect. Beyond that, good video =]
reapersalibi 2 years ago
@reapersalibi thats very smart the first time i heard that was in the bible from paul
NUMBLIFEUSA 2 years ago
i agree with the death penalty. not for the benefit of society or as a deterrent for a potential murderer. but if some one takes a life he or she must be prepared to lose theirs. and not for society's sake but the sake of the family of the victim. if one of my family members where killed i would take small comfort that the killer is not enjoying life, even if it would be in a jail cell.
CMichaelH 2 years ago
@CMichaelH thats very personal what do you think about taking your own revenge
NUMBLIFEUSA 2 years ago
my friend was killed over xmas. hes death has hit my friends hard. my view is why should his killers be let to live? BUT i dont agree whit da death of the British guy xecuted for drug smuggling in china. he is a criminal and he should b punished but is death right for what he did? bout taking my own revenge, my revenge will b Cing them punished in the eyes of the law. wotevr the punishment they diside to give out. it not my place to seak revenge rather leve it for the state to give da punishment
CMichaelH 2 years ago
I like that opinion. So sorry to hear about your friend.
JoeFelice 2 years ago
@CMichaelH
i agree with joe. i believe in an eye for an eye (only with proof, dna if need be and if there is no true insanity) but i generally support the death penalty, not as deterance, but rather individual case. if someone, knowingly goes and massacre's people, then should he be brought to justice, he should be killed. i don't celebrate anyone dying, but it is justice, in my view anyway. drugs or other things should not be punishable by death.
TeslaDRay 1 year ago
Giving a group of people the power to lawfully kill, is wrong.
Peace
truefictions 2 years ago
2,000,000 people are in prison. I say expand the death penalty to hardcore "three strikers", pedophiles and rapist.
Society will benefit in terms of dollars and sense and lowering repeat offender crimes. You can't be a repeat offender if your fertilizer.
MrQuestionAuthority 2 years ago
why not remove non violent people from prision. then we would have room to seperate these people indefinity from society
mkrulic517439 2 years ago
@MrQuestionAuthority people go trough things and develop from one moment to the next so you never know if they will be a repeat offender or a changed man
NUMBLIFEUSA 2 years ago
omg! thank you! i so freakin agree with you!
o0HaylieMarie0o 2 years ago
The Death Penalty is a deterrent, that's why criminals avoid houses where they think the owners have guns. They think they might get killed engaging in a criminal act there so they don't.
It's usefulness as a deterrent in the US has been watered down because liberals overrule the will of the people on this issue and make it nearly impossible for killers to be killed. So, criminals don't really expect to die for murder. It rarely happens. In California, they're on Death Row for 20 yrs +.
RuflessRecords 2 years ago
Liberals like to throw up endless roadblocks to the execution of convicted murderers...and then use the roadblocks, time delays, money wasted, lessening of deterrence value they created as reasons to be against the death penalty. Since the people always vote that we should have a death penalty for murderers, they do an end run around the people's will by drawing out the time frame from conviction to execution, then they say the 20 yr process is too costly so we shouldn't have a death penalty.
RuflessRecords 2 years ago
Deterrence of future murders by usage of the Death Penalty will begin to increase when we start executing convicted murderers within a year of their conviction.
Like when, murderers will actually expect to be killed when they murder.
The murder rate by the way has gone way down over the last couple decades, as the country's recoiled from the soft on crime insanity of the late 60's 70's. Even Clin"toon" was fairly tough on crime.
RuflessRecords 2 years ago
are you intelligent enough to understand the argument of the person who posted this vid? search objective morality
mkrulic517439 2 years ago
I didn't reply to his bogus rationale against deterrence, just wrote about the merits/liberal imposed limits of deterrence in general. You don't expect me to watch the whole video before putting in my two cents on CommenTube do you?
His argument against deterrence in the second half is bad. We don't kill people to deter future murders as the primary benefit, it's a side benefit that naturally occurs. If we executed for the primary reason of deterrence that would be wrong. We don't.
RuflessRecords 2 years ago
@RuflessRecords whe you are at a point were you could kill someone you don't care i would even venture to say that a year until death would be an incentive
NUMBLIFEUSA 2 years ago
Look here. My sister was murdered when she was 18. Fuck deterrence. What about justice? The Lord said we should take murderers outside the city gates and stone them. To send them to him and let him sort them out. So I dont care if it deters anyone or not. I care about them paying the price for the life they took. I dont expect you to understand.
RedWhiteandBetrayed 2 years ago
@RedWhiteandBetrayed what stoped you from killing the dude who killed your sister other than the law
NUMBLIFEUSA 2 years ago
They caught him first... and i was 10 at the time... he is in jail now but if i could get to him i dont know what i would do....
RedWhiteandBetrayed 2 years ago
Remember that guy (I think his name was Jesus) who died for everyone elses sins?? Are you saying that that was amoral??
xCantStopTheSignalx 2 years ago
@xCantStopTheSignalx Fake.
Atheonyirh 2 years ago
It's a silly fairytale
nilbud 2 years ago
The US government per capital kills more people then any other industrialized nation in the world
the prison system it self is racist, inflated, and obsolete, it does not rehabilitate anyone, prisons are only good for corporations who want to make products just as cheap as in china but put made in US on it.
the prison system is wrong. and killing people makes the system look worse.
FwaterO 2 years ago
I'm from Europe. no death penatly there. Works great.
SatwaMan 2 years ago
@SatwaMan where does it work ? i havent seen it work.
Fluffytoffee 2 years ago
Don't be such a braindead clown.
nilbud 2 years ago
I had a dog that I had to put down because he started biting. and using that as a guide line murderers need to be put down.
BUDDAWG2004 2 years ago
Thankfully you'll never be in any position of authority. You know the way you can't tell the difference between humans and animals, that's a big problem.
nilbud 2 years ago
see with dogs not allot of thought go into their actions,more instinct or reactionary reflex. however a human does or should have the ability to reason and once that is gone they no longer are a part of the human race but a new member of the animal kingdom. and in my earlier comment should be put down.
BUDDAWG2004 2 years ago
I was actually sad that my dog was put down but it had to be done to protect my kids and neighbors. that last sentence points out the difference between a liberal and a clear thinking individual. all about personal responsibility. not societies fault my dog turned viscous it just happened. now my kids are safe and one less problem in this world to deal with
BUDDAWG2004 2 years ago
@BUDDAWG2004 so was your later comment a re traction
NUMBLIFEUSA 2 years ago
Anyone who commits murder deserves to be tortured. Slow, extremely painful death is what they deserve.
TheCooliestPerson 2 years ago
Comment removed
TheCooliestPerson 2 years ago
Dead criminals don't commit crimes.
KrayonPrinz 2 years ago
The amazing thing is that those on the LEFT that so vehemently oppose the death penalty of a guilty murder are the ones that support the abortion of millions of innocent yet to be born babies.
It is hypocrisy in its biggest and evilest form.
ferrisphotography 2 years ago
I believe that if you are sentenced to life without parole, then you should automaticaly recieve the death penalty. if we have to have a goverment as involved as we do now, than i do not want said goverment wasting thier money on life nessities to someone in a prisn for life.
AlysaHJE 2 years ago
i believe in an eye for an eye if you rape and kill some one you should die in the same way and so on they government uses it for the wrong reason
thedarklordsknigh 2 years ago
If I was convicted of murder and given a choice of life in prison without parole or the death penalty, I would 100% choose the death penalty. I would much rather die then rot in prison for the next 60 years. So I guess I believe in the opposite of deterrence, the death penalty seems to benefit the prisoner even more than the public, because in that situation, in my opinion, dying is much much better than living.
aroneous 2 years ago
Hey Joe!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it costs money to keep prisoners alive. And I'm not saying that money is the driving factor, but if a prisoner is a huge threat to society (murdering, raping, injuring prison guards or fellow prisoners), then yes, I think his existence is a waste of taxpayer dollars and society would benefit from his death. But I haven't crunched the numbers... it's just a thought.
julesx822 2 years ago
@julesx822
again, it costs more to execute a prisoner than to feed him in prison for life.
Hereticbooks 2 years ago
well alright... but i still think if he's a danger even in a high-security prison, then we'd be better off without him...
the whole deterrent thing is such a sham regardless.
julesx822 2 years ago
@julesx822
The "sham" is the criminal justice system that fails to convict real criminals, and executes innocent men. While this is a sham....we must not execute any more innnocent men.
Hereticbooks 2 years ago
@Hereticbooks one pistol with a full clip is alot cheaper than all those wheat bread cheese and bologna sandwiches they give you in jail where is all this money going not to house keeping thats for damn sure
NUMBLIFEUSA 2 years ago
I don't see the death penalty as a deterrant per se. I see it is assured that a murdering animal won't murder again.
DoggBisket 2 years ago
You have an amazing ability to argue something in a way that I have never thought about before. I confess I had to watch this twice before it really sunk in, but when it did I realized that you are exactly right on this. Unfortunately, I think more people are for the death penalty on grounds of punishment or retribution and not deterrence. This definitely takes some of the wind out of their sails though...
slapshot1519 2 years ago
I believe that it has nothing to do with deterrence coz both Death and a miserable life behind bars could work as deterrent.
I believe that a person who deprives another from his or her life deserves to have their life taken away too.
Who am I to say that the life of the criminal is worth sparing, while the life of the victim (who could be someone's parent or child or loved one) is to be wasted for nothing.
candlelight377 2 years ago
I like that begginnig sound that you did before you started to talk
SuperTiqris 2 years ago
Many innocent people have died through the use of the "death penalty." That's enough reason to get rid of it. Let's face it...the criminal justice system in this country is flawed...SERIOUSLY flawed. It's a game. Prosecutors are out for blood in order to launch their political careers. It doesn't matter whether a person is guilty or innocent. It's about each side desiring to "win." Poor, minority, or otherwise disadvantaged convicts are far more likely to be "put to death."
Hereticbooks 2 years ago
I think A LOT MORE innocent people (wives, husbands, daughters, sons) have died at the hands of murderers. I think that is enough reason to enact the death penalty.
dosomethin888 2 years ago
@dosomethin888
so you're saying that it's so important to kill criminals that it's alright if occasionally we kill an innocent person? That it's a matter of numbers? I feel that it's more important that the "state" NEVER kill an innocent person, and therefore the death penalty has to go.
Hereticbooks 2 years ago
That is exactly what I'm saying.
dosomethin888 2 years ago
@dosomethin888
Then may the gods forbit that any member of your family just happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and is convicted of a heinous crime they didn't do. I suppose what it comes down to, is whether a civilisation believes that it's more important to punish convicts, or to rehabilitate, when possible, or at the very least remove dangerous members of the human family from said society so they can't harm again.
Hereticbooks 2 years ago
Lol and the chance of that happening is how much? There is more of a chance of one of my family members being murdered. You are one of those people who dont live in reality.
dosomethin888 2 years ago
@Hereticbooks i think a society that was into rehabilation would start the rehab long before the crimes started they(the rehab society in my head) would probably be so advanced they would be like star wars with free beer
NUMBLIFEUSA 2 years ago
What about adults raping and killing adults?
dosomethin888 2 years ago
I dont even think that there should be a question about death penalty. Maybe the reason its hard to come to a conclusion is because our court system is so screwed up.
dosomethin888 2 years ago
very well spoken! i appreciate your insight. it's very good
swatkins246 2 years ago
i think they need to fix the death penalty system. it takes people years of being on death row to be killed, so they need to speed it up. people complain about not having enough room in the prisons, so kill the bastards that raped/murdered innocent people. keeping them in jail for 80 years might make them suffer more, but then you wont have room for the guy that robbed a store, and you need to spend millions building a new sector of the jail.
nickmax123 2 years ago
there isnt enough rooms in prison because there are A LOT of people who are in for stupid reasons... rapist, killers, robbers get off all the time but someone who violates parol by comming home 10 min late or someone who was caught with weed is put in prison... not jail but prison taking up space... is it a crime? yes, but if there is no room then the ones who need parol dont get it while the ones who shouldnt go get off... technicallities and corrupt justice system... its disgusting
realtalksince89 2 years ago
wow never thought of it that way. Excellent point well made.
mooxim 2 years ago
I used to be in favor of the death penalty. Now I absolutely oppose it.
I think your argument that deterrence is evil is excellent and persuasive and I've never heard it before.
My objection is religious. I believe in the immortality of the soul and in redemption, so I believe that we do not have the right to steal the opportunity of repentance from anyone regardless of what they've done.
We only have the right to protect ourselves. With our prisons, We no longer have to kill to do that.
eccentricfather 2 years ago
its all well and good to say u dont belive in the death penalty, that is until one of your family or friends is killed for no reason. i think that person if proven guilty should be killed or if you molest a child.
askjeebs 2 years ago
That's why we don't allow family and friends of victims to sit on juries of those accused.
eccentricfather 2 years ago
i never thought of it that way and i 100% agree, tho i didnt agree with death penalty to begin with i had never thought of it in that light. cool vid
TheDeeJeeMee 2 years ago
Any liberals here for the death penalty? Any conservatives against it? Why you go against the politically correct position?
pkingo1 2 years ago
I'm not turning myself into a murderer because of what someone else did. They might commit crimes, but I'm still (trying to be) a good person.
MissKriekentaart 2 years ago
Never thoguht about it that way. The deterrence argument is a red herring.
pkingo1 2 years ago
i do not believe in the death penalty for two reasons.... 1- people cannot play God... there are too many young, accidental, crazy deaths in this world and if God did not want to take this person there was a reason... 2- death is the easy way out.... let him suffer
realtalksince89 2 years ago
1) What about the person killing other people? Aren't they playing God? 2) And what about all our tax dollars paying for murderer's and rapist's food and extracurricular activities?
dosomethin888 2 years ago
1- they are and its wrong but 2 wrongs dont make a right 2- food should be bare minimum and i feel no extracurricular activities are needed.... lock him up... keep him surviving.... not possible but still would not want him in the streets and would not want to kill him neither so its worth it... if it wasnt going there it would be going into the pockets of political giants
realtalksince89 2 years ago
@dosomethin888
It costs far more money to execute a prisoner than to feed him for life.
Hereticbooks 2 years ago
Well, I dont think that's the case in the long run is it? And I say hang em! That's cheap!
dosomethin888 2 years ago
We shouldn't model our behavior on the most evil of our society.
eccentricfather 2 years ago
I'm not trying to debate with you, but I think that letting them live would be the easy way out. Depending on what you believe, I believe that they would go to hell and suffer like they never would here on earth.
dosomethin888 2 years ago
hell is earth and not saying i do or do not believe in heaven and hell.... i do but at the same time idk if it REALLY exist or not.... i like to believe it so the good can prosper and the bad can suffer but for all i know people can just go POOF and thats it when they die.... when its his time... its his time..... we are no one to decide or judge whether someone lives or dies
realtalksince89 2 years ago
dont you think you will suffer too one day since you are technically commiting a sin by judging and deciding someones death just like the killer did? to clarify i am not saying u are going to hell or anything, im just wondering your view, the road goes two ways and i find it very hypocritical to punish someone for commiting a crime by commiting the crime again. i am no better than u and u are no better than me. God knows what is in your heart, only He can judge
realtalksince89 2 years ago
Well, from my point of view, saying that someone will go to Hell for something like that comes from my faith. And the Bible also says "an eye for an eye" which means that someone who kills someone should be killed too. Its fair. I dont think anyone is committing a sin for giving someone the consequence they deserve. I mean, if someone killed my mom, who did nothing, I would want them to be put to death. That is my opinion.
dosomethin888 2 years ago
the Bible also says He who is without sin cast the first stone.... and teaches not to judge others because judgement day will come for you too... it also teaches forgiveness
realtalksince89 2 years ago
So, if we punish anyone for anything, does that mean we are judging them and that we are without sin because we dare to judge them? What about children? Should we not punish them for things they do wrong because they will inevitably pay for their sins "one" day? I dont see the logic in that.
dosomethin888 2 years ago
you just compared killing someone to raising a child -_-... done with this convo
realtalksince89 2 years ago
I was comparing the act of "judging" people and people being punished. But if you want to talk about kids, there are a ton of people who rape and murder kids and you dont think that we have the right to put them to death.
dosomethin888 2 years ago
no... i think they should rot in prison.... i been there and done that and i have forgiven... no i havent forgotten but i have forgivin and i am not without sin..;.. i am not an angel or anything close to it and i think its wrong to take another humans life no matter what it is.... put that mutha fucker in a box and feed him bread water and boiled eggs... enough to sustain because he/she does not deserve the luxuries of life but death is the easy way out
realtalksince89 2 years ago
Ok, but they dont feed them crackers and water. They feed them better food than what is served in schools. And they dont rot in a box. They are allowed TV and sports and other things to do with their time.. which you and me pay for. If someone killed my brother, mom, dad etc. I would not want to pay to keep them alive. But, alas, we dont all feel that way.
dosomethin888 2 years ago
i understand your stand point and i respect and to a degree agree with your reasoning... i dont think they deserve the good treatment they get in prison... but if i had to choose i would rather than than kill another.... yes i would probably be the first to die in a horror movie :)... great convo.... ****SUBSCRIBED**** and im getting my camera for christmas and will be starting shows after... subscribe to me and if u dont like my show u can always unsubscribe later
realtalksince89 2 years ago
so your telling me you would rather pay for those criminals to rot in jail
thedarklordsknigh 2 years ago
yes... either that or its going to the pockets of political giants anyway... the entire justice system is screwed up and there are guily people who get let off due to technicality and people who dont commit as bad crimes who are in prison for years.... in my opinion, i will not agree with killing as a solution to killing.... thats like saying well you just dropped orange soda on my floor, well im going dip this mop in more orange soda and attempt to clean it up... all u got now is a sticky floor
realtalksince89 2 years ago
@thedarklordsknigh
It costs more to the taxpayer to execute someone than to feed them for life in prison.
Hereticbooks 2 years ago
@Hereticbooks why not just shot them in the face?
NUMBLIFEUSA 2 years ago
thank you for bringing this into perspective. Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong? Death penalty is WRONG. We humans are not capable of making descisions as to end another human's life.
jeffaroche 2 years ago
its an eye for an eye but it is not for u to punish... he will get them in the end
realtalksince89 2 years ago
"You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Matthew 5:3839
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
eccentricfather 2 years ago
Yes, if someone kills your mom, let them kill your dad too! Heck, let them kill your sister and your brother and then you too! Sure, that is exactly what that verse is referring to. Not.
dosomethin888 2 years ago
That's exactly what I meant. Or I could have been pointing out that selectively choosing bible passages to justify your desire for revenge is old hat.
Incarcerate violent criminals. That protects society. There is no need to kill them. And we do not have the right. We need to hold the moral high ground.
If our justice system is flawed enough that it may let guilty people go free, it is flawed enough to execute innocents as well.
eccentricfather 2 years ago
Well I agree with you on a few things. But the problem is not that our system is flawed, it is that over the years, there has been a decline in consequences for people's actions. You can see it everywhere in our society. We care more about not hurting people's feelings.
dosomethin888 2 years ago 2
@dosomethin888 so what do we do to change that?
NUMBLIFEUSA 2 years ago
@eccentricfather well do you think we have to lean to one side or the other if so which side do you prefer
NUMBLIFEUSA 2 years ago
i subscribed to you because i liked your face
goofyboy1994 2 years ago 2
I have to say i do agree with the deterrence of the death penalty, and her is why
(now this reason would have to be under certain reasons, because i do agree that you should not die for the sins of others, but honestly if you kill someone out of cold blood, not manslughter or anything like that, but consious murder then... well you deserve to die)
Also the amount of money it would save the prisons for food for inmates that are there for murder would be huge. Less money towards prisons is good
killtastraphe 2 years ago
i'm pretty sure the money saved on food for the few that are executed would not be 'huge'.. i've actually read results of a few studies that found the cost of capital trail appeals that those on death row use & their execution are way more expensive than life w/ no parole.. that's fine to have your opinion, but the cost argument actually isn't on your side in this case.
sisforshayla 2 years ago
(shrug)
killtastraphe 2 years ago
hmm. . . i have to agree that it is morally reprehensible to kill one person for the sins of others, as he said in the video. and i would like to make the comment that the same morally backwards concept is the basis for christianity. that is all.
preacherofreason 2 years ago
i dont trust a state or higher government to have the capacity of ending a captive human being's life- because i do not believe any justice system is perfect enough to do that without error. resulting in the ultimate and irreversible error. if you think about it, it should be the conservative argument..but most are too deluded to realize that.
sisforshayla 2 years ago
your style reminds me a lot of Rachael Maddow.
giantenemycrabX 2 years ago
I don't agree with deterrence, but I do think it is a valid argument. We're not talking about killing individuals post facto, we are talking about enacting laws that potential criminals know about. It is the law that is the deterrent, not the act of execution.
I think life imprisonment is sufficient because I don't think punishment works at all. We just need to remove violent individuals from society. Death is far too permanent and can not be undone when and if new evidence comes to light.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
Agreed. Some people deserve to die, but not for a deterrent. If you end someone's life and if it had malicious intent behind it then yes you should be killed. Plus if we also include 3strikers then we can get rid of the excess prison population. I think some crimes should have the death penalty as a deterrent like how about AIG, Enron, and other executives who have defrauded the government for billions of $'s. I mean that would save the government trillions.
TheMasochrist 2 years ago
I don't think there is a single person who accepts or rejects the death penalty based on deterrence. They may use it to support their stance on the issue, but I've never met a person who used that as their big gun.
It's also not the important question. The important question is the one you danced about, touching but never grabbing, which is whether or not the death penalty is the right thing to do. I'm not interested in effectiveness; justice is the vital burden.
DerekofBavaria 2 years ago
Wow you truly didn't understand the point he was trying to get across. Which is. There is no answer to the question "is the death penalty the right thing to do?" There is only opinion. All he was doing in this video was point out that a deterrence is wrong on the issue.
HOBO8O8 2 years ago
That's a bunch of sop. Yes, it's all opinion, but only because the answer is debatable, but that is absolutely not to say that we shouldn't argue it. I understood the point, and I reject it as a question wrongly asked, not to mention irrelevant in the face of the bigger question. Sometimes people try to take different tacks on an issue in hopes that it will be more interesting; in this case it was not.
DerekofBavaria 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The spending per death-row inmate is almost THREE TIMES the amount spent on other inmates. the current death-row census totals 685, but because of legal issues only 13 have been executed since 1977. This is compared to the 71 death-row fatalities from other causes.
Walkr 2 years ago
There are quite a few arguments for and against the death penalty. My personal "favourite" is the argument that it will save tax payers some money by putting criminals to death instead of throwing them into an overcrowded prison system. Although that may be true, in my opinion it is still inherently evil, as you so eloquently put it.
By the way, did you get a hair cut?
NaienaArygos 2 years ago
That's not true, the spending per death-row inmate is almost THREE TIMES the amount spent on other inmates. the current death-row census totals 685, but because of legal issues only 13 have been executed since 1977. This is compared to the 71 death-row fatalities from other causes.
Walkr 2 years ago
Well, although I was being sarcastic when I said it was my favourite argument, I think for the most part they are arguing for fewer appeal procedures (which of course is unconstitutional), and therefore a shorter waiting period.
NaienaArygos 2 years ago
Great points! I haven't really thought about this very much, so thanks for sharing your opinion. :) I always thought that most serial killers wouldn't be deterred by other murderers dying, because they are sick. They would know about the consequences, but it wouldn't help them to repress their urges.
norbaclove 2 years ago
I feel that if I was in their position, the choice of either getting sent to jail for the rest of my entire life, or dying then I would most likely rather die than suffer through years in that place. So even though it does cost money to keep them there, I believe its a greater punishment. Great point Joe.
hardcorekipz 2 years ago
Awesome Joe! So on point and very valid!
JusReign 2 years ago
Very valid video, i totally didnt think of this myself. so thank you for the share.
danzor243 2 years ago
JOE FELICE FOR PRESIDENT!!!
JesterC88 2 years ago
Personally, I have no problem with the death penalty. I believe it would be a pretty sufficient method of "weeding the gardens of humanity" so to speak, if our justice system were more foolproof about who is convicted in the first place.
"The arguement that society will benefit" as you said ... can be manipulated to justify just about anything, (and our government manipulates it constantly, for exactly that reason), so on the subject of deterrence, I totally agree with you, Joe. It's bull. :D
ridbop 2 years ago
Why waste taxpayer money keeping sick serial killers alive? I don't think the death penalty will deter people from killing, but I don't think keeping someone alive if they took the life or lives of innocent people is logical. To me, they are just scum.. Period. Some people deserve to have their lives ended. And I also believe they should only receive the death sentence if it is absolutely proven that they actually killed someone.
Kekermonger 2 years ago
well, I don't agree that the death penelty fix's anything really...and it is kinda pointless! It's not up to us to say whether someone should die or not anyway
Brandiemh 2 years ago
you make a very valid point joe and me personally i honestly believe in what actually happened. in a court of law in the united states its not really about what really happened its about what you can prove, if we could refrain from what you can prove and goto what actually happened(which is a difficult task in itself) then the death penalty would make more sense.
redneckn2n 2 years ago
I'm a firm believer of an "Eye for an Eye".
You kill someone, you die. You steal something, you die.
AeroTheGamer 2 years ago
Thats so American it hurts. Great comment.
danxl5 2 years ago
Fantastic stuff, Joe!
I'm not one for the death penalty, just for life sentences.
crimsong19 2 years ago
i would rather my tax dollars not feed a murderer
Pentagram133 2 years ago 2
What he's saying is that the reason that these politicians are pushing the death penalty is that they want it to deter other convicts from committing heinous crimes. He believes to take a life for the reason to stop others from committing crimes is faulty reasoning. It is also morally and ethically incorrect. I agree completely. Great vid.
saiphen 2 years ago
I usually find your arguments very compelling, but I must be missing something here. I am absolutely against the death penalty. That said, I actually have a lot of respect for a friend of mine who thinks killing someone is deplorable, but--because he firmly believes the data saying that it IS a deterrence--it's worth it in order to save the other lives that would otherwise be lost. I actually think it's a reasonable argument and you failed to convince me otherwise. Wanna give it another try?
knibbles1882 2 years ago
Death penalty will never be just. There are more people involved than the person accused of murder. I am thinking about surrounding family, such as mother, girlfriend/boyfriend, children and friends.
froyasjakk 2 years ago
The state cannot prohibit killing and then indulge in executing citizens. No country can join the EU without abolishing the death penalty. If you commit a crime you obviously don't intend to be caught you intend to get away, so deterrence doesn't come into your plan. They also slaughter a lot of innocent people so how is that undone? Execute the state maybe.
nilbud 2 years ago
good to know your not some crazy left wing hippie i knew you werent before but the hair always gets me lol
cavan132 2 years ago
Joey, you crazy bastard , who the hell gives 3 shits about the death penalty? Why don't you talk about how Barack Obama is a USELESS, LYING, Mother Fucker and how this "CHANGE" we voted for has turned into a big pile of shit. Why don't you talk about how this "Health Care" bill is screwing us all by the day. Why don't you talk about how the only promise Obama kept is to KILL more of our beloved troops and innocent civilians in a UNwinnable war in Afghanistan.Say something you coward.
onerpone 2 years ago
If u voted for him, then u should shut the fuck up.
justcallmesoso 2 years ago
Beloved troops, eww. Ease back on the meds there pal.
nilbud 2 years ago
i think only death penalty if 3 murders or more committed, sometimes people see their mistake
L8tN1teSaterdA 2 years ago
If you murder, you should be wiped off the planet, you are not allowed to destroy life you did not create, if you think it's ok to take a life you don't deserve to walk on this planet with all the rest of the billions of people who don't do it because we know it's wrong.
Micfri 2 years ago
So according to you killing your kids is ok. I'm not sure I want my parents to have that kind of power.
nilbud 2 years ago
For me at least, life in prison always seemed worse than the death penalty. With the death penalty its over with death. With life in prison every day would be as good as it would ever get, awful!
Also, I believe studies have shown if more cost effective to incarcerate someone for life than to put them to death. With the amount of money spent on lawyers and appeals.
OhioDemocrat 2 years ago
My best friends brother got life... he was so upset and distraught, he was innocent and didn't know what to do. If he got the death penalty he might be dead right now instead of out with his family. They found evidence later on and he was proven innocent of all wrong doings.
punkslilncs 2 years ago
i love your beard...and hairs in general
but you keep touching something off screen with your hand. it is quite distracting. Might you tell us what your touching?
purplepanda11 2 years ago
A monkey paw.
nilbud 2 years ago
hey joe, my answere is too long so im sending it to you in a personal message
almost allways i come up with the same conclusions that you come up to (yes, i came up with my coclusions before knowing this blog...read my response when you have the time....thanks
isai121288 2 years ago
this video is torture enough and has dettered me from rating it 5 stars ,,
ps 1*
intergalacticdreamz 2 years ago
Punishment is never a deterent, however people who have committed horrible crimes and are killed for them won't ever commit them again.
Killing a rapist won't stop other people from raping others but it'll stop that specific rapist forever.
That is why I support th death penalty.
papervampire 2 years ago
@papervampire Also if the system were more efficient it would save millions upon millions of dollars.
jem7992 2 years ago
Yeah the system is more about revenge then justice or benefiting society.
Keeping people in prison for decades is just petty and cruel and leave them with time to escape or fight the verdict on technicalities.
People can be executed in a painless and humane manner using a inert gass to suffocate them, they just fall asleep and die without pain or suffering.
but people want criminals to suffer which makes the just as bad as them.
papervampire 2 years ago
A punishment with a deterrent effect is more moral then one without. Say you gave people money as a punishment for stealing. That would be an immoral law as it encourages breaking the law.
All punishments should have a deterrent effect, if not, it is a pointless law.
TheVigilante2000 2 years ago
I love your videos Joe, but in this case I have to disagree with you. The issue of deterrence does have a place in this discussion. Deterrence itself is not justification to kill anyone, but a detailed analysis of this issue must take it into account. If true, it would be a positive externality of the death penalty and would provide a pragmatic reason for it. If you believe that killing murderers is morally fine but wonder if it is the best policy overall, the question of deterrence is important
07kane 2 years ago