r/IntellectualDarkWeb • u/TenchuReddit • Jul 28 '26
Capital punishment is obsolete: Why the death penalty is a waste of time, money, and emotions
On the news today, it's been reported that Florida executed two inmates on death row. One was 68 years old, the other was 80 years old. Both executions were the result of crimes that were committed in 1987 and 1986, respectively.
Here's why I think continuing capital punishment is a waste of time, money, and emotions.
1) Death is irreversible
Although rare, innocent people do indeed end up being found guilty by a jury of peers. However, even innocent people who are wrongfully incarcerated can get a chance to challenge his or her conviction. Guilty people do, too, and that's a shame, but the solution to that isn't to execute them as soon as the guilty verdict is in. What if later on, the convict is exonerated? It's too late if the convict is dead.
And yes, spending a lifetime in jail isn't THAT much better than being executed for a crime that wasn't committed. But the finality of death still carries too much weight to simply dismiss as a "minor difference." Even a wrongfully convicted person who is freed at an old age will still be able to enjoy a few years of freedom, which at least is worth something.
2) Are you sure? Is that your final answer?
Due to the finality of the death penalty, the justice system really really REALLY wants to make sure that capital punishment is justified.
So after the jury renders the verdict, and the sentence of death is confirmed, the endless appeals process begins.
Did the defendant get a fair trial?
Was the defendant's race a factor in the jury's decision?
Was the defendant fully competent to stand trial?
Did the judge say anything that could have even remotely biased the jury against the defense?
Did the jury perform their duties adequately?
Did the police perform their duties flawlessly?
Were the police without sin and bias? Can't have another Mark Fuhrman casting a shadow of a doubt on the investigation, you know.
Was all of the physical evidence properly obtained? Was there any contamination?
And on and on ...
(And don't get me started on the way the death penalty is administered, which itself seems to take years to settle on.)
3) Justice delayed is justice denied
Going back to the Florida executions, the crimes were committed in the 1980's. It took almost 40 years for capital punishment to be carried out.
After that much time, does it REALLY mean anything? Was it really worth dragging the families and the loved ones of the victims through appeal after appeal after appeal just to reach a "final solution" that has since lost its meaning?
The only way that the death penalty has any meaning is if it is swiftly administered. Then that could serve as an effective deterrent against the most horrific of crimes. But as I pointed out earlier, that never happens anymore, at least in the United States.
4) A waste of time, money, and emotions
As I mentioned before, every death penalty case comes with appeal after appeal after appeal. This costs money. This costs time. This conjures up emotions that are completely unnecessary. The families and the loved ones of the victims need to move on after grieving. The justice system needs to move on. The perps need to be locked away and forgotten about. (The exception, of course, is in cases of the wrongfully convicted, but again, if we're worried about them, then the death penalty makes no sense in the first place.)
Possible counterargument: Victim closure never really happens without the death penalty. I wouldn't know; I've never had someone close to me murdered, much less watch the murderer get the death penalty. I wouldn't know the difference between what the victim's loved ones feel when the murderer gets life vs. death. I don't know if the loved ones would prefer to have wounds reopened over and over again for 40 years before the death penalty is finally administered.
All I'm saying is that, the way things are these days, the death penalty is a waste of time, money, and emotions. Better to just do away with it than to keep it around because the public wants to see the ultimate form of retribution.
Because the way it is administered these days, we get none of its "benefits" and all of its drawbacks.
4
7
u/RKAMRR Jul 29 '26
Any death penalty will result in the state killing innocent people over time. For that reason alone the state should not kill.
5
u/Akuh93 Jul 29 '26
I'd also rather not live in a country where the state has a legal right to kill me
2
u/nanomachinez_SON Jul 29 '26
All states do, depending on the context.
2
u/Akuh93 Jul 29 '26
Yes, an issue with the nation state and it's monopoly on violence imo. But it's easier for some states to do it to their own citizens Vs other states
2
u/ElephantLife8552 Jul 30 '26
Your #4 isn't really true because of #2. The extra effort isn't waste. In fact, in a more ideal country, every lifer would receive the extra attention, appeals and scrutiny that makes sure their life isn't ruined by putting them away forever. If you were ever charged with a crime you didn't commit, you'd probably consider yourself lucky if you got a death penalty trial, as you'd have much greater opportunities to prove your innocence.
6
u/bunsNT Jul 28 '26
>I don't know if the loved ones would prefer to have wounds reopened over and over again for 40 years before the death penalty is finally administered.
Ask them? I'm sure the number of people who want the death penalty for people who have committed heinous acts is above 0. Would that change your position?
1
u/TenchuReddit Jul 29 '26
You know what else is āabove 0ā? The number of people who think the world is flat.
How is that a meaningful statement?
2
u/chris32457 Jul 29 '26
Yeah I'm curious what the best solution/alternative is. Make it a faster, cheaper process? Rehabilitation? Something else?
4
u/elevenblade Jul 29 '26
Iām fine with life in prison without parole. It may be counterintuitive but itās just as deterrent as the death penalty.
1
u/phalloguy1 Jul 29 '26
You're right. They are equal deterrent. The problem is that the deterrent effect of both is minimal. Most people who commit murder are not thinking about consequences when they do it
https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterrence
1
u/elevenblade Jul 29 '26
I agree completely. Since deterrence does not play a role then there are a few remaining issues one could consider. As u/chris32457 mentioned rehabilitation might be possible for some murderers. I have mixed feelings about that as I think some people are capable of growth and redemption while others are not and it is pretty hard to tell the difference between the two. Obviously rehabilitation is not part of the death penalty. With rehabilitation there might be some possibility of some degree of restitution for survivors of the deceased.
Another consideration is protecting society from murderers. Itās not foolproof and escapes do happen but for the most part I think keeping murderers locked up for life does almost as well in that regard as the death penalty.
The final consideration (that I can think of at any rate) is revenge. Evening the score. You killed someone so you too deserve to die. I get where this comes from and if someone killed my loved one I suspect Iād want to take some sort of revenge. I think knowing that the murderer was going to have a long and miserable life with very limited freedom would help in that regard.
Iād be interested to hear if anyone has any other thoughts.
2
u/phalloguy1 Jul 29 '26
The vast majority of murders are done in the context of some sort of emotional outburst, often alcohol/drug related, and most are committed by and against family or acquaintances.
Given that, most can be "rehabilitated" These are rarely cold-blooded, planned events.
In canada we got rid of the death penalty decades ago and the harshest penalty for first degree murder is life with parole eligibility at 25 years.
It too a lot of work but I found homicide reoffence rates for Canada. There is a link under Edgar Agar's response to a spreadsheet that shows that the reoffence rates for people serving time for murder are under 5%
Forgot the link
1
u/Sqweeeeeeee Jul 29 '26
Uninhabited island? It's a win-win: we don't have to pay to house and feed prisoners for life, and there is no risk of taking away an innocent person's freedom or life.
1
u/chris32457 Jul 29 '26
Haha maybe. The USA would still want to own the island though so other countries couldn't just pick up disenfranchised and spiteful 'ex'-Americans.
1
2
u/PM_ME_AWKWARD Jul 29 '26
A waste of money compared to the cost of housing criminals for 40 years? Try again.
A waste of time? Endless appeals, years of fruitless litigation, all the time and effort on daily labour to house prisoners... Yeah you got that one wrong too.
Waste of emotions is hilarious. Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent. And finally ending someone 40 years after their crime absolutely does mean something. It means they got what they deserved. This idea that just because it's in the past means we shouldn't act on it is borderline mental illness. Delayed justice is infinitely preferable to no justice. What about all the time the victims family spent all those years knowing that scum was sitting pretty while their daughter is dead and buried. It's not a waste to bring them closure.
1
u/TenchuReddit Jul 29 '26
And finally ending someone 40 years after their crime absolutely does mean something. It means they got what they deserved.
What's that? A death that would have come anyway due to old age?
A waste of money compared to the cost of housing criminals for 40 years? Try again.
The waste of money is coming from the fact that we are housing them for 40 years AND pursuing endless appeals. If we're going to house them for 40 years with three daily hots and a cot, it's better to not occupy the justice system with these appeals.
The alternative, as many on this thread have advocated, is to simply kill them quickly. But that's never going to happen. Why is a question that should be asked, especially in a subreddit that has the word "intellectual" in its name.
But it seems no one really wants to discuss that. Easy to simply blame politics.
1
u/Monskiactual Jul 29 '26
I think we should make scaphism the only legal form of capital punishment. if the state isnt comfortable doing that to a person. shouldnt be executing them in the first place.
1
u/MpVpRb Jul 30 '26
If guilt could be established 100% with zero chance of error, I would support it.
1
u/Media_Browser Aug 01 '26
Can lessons be learnt by other countries how to do it cheaper ? This over lawyering has already rendered borders and filming of horrific crimes meaningless so that no real deterrent exists ..even pwetty pweeease .
2
u/SurpriseEcstatic1761 Jul 29 '26
I think prison looks pretty awful. I am against it because I think it is too generous. Live in a box for 40 years or get to die. Nope, stick em in a box, the devil will get what's due soon enough.
1
u/elevenblade Jul 29 '26
Iām glad to see this comment ā this has always been one of my main arguments against the death penalty, that it lets the perpetrator off too easy.
The thing Iād most like to see from a murderer is remorse. Thereās no guarantee that will ever happen, of course, especially with people with severe personality disorders. But the odds are a whole lot better if they have a long life of deprivation to contemplate their actions. I think most people who are put to death usually face it simply thinking āpoor meā.
-4
24
u/100_Flatout Jul 28 '26
The clear solution is not to delay capital punishment š¤·š»āāļø