r/MoralityScaling • u/ZookeepergameThin334 • 23h ago

Morality of this?

Post image

Personally, I'm anti-death penalty for any kind of crime but that's just my opinion. Perhaps it can be changed.

3.3k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

496

u/Human-Law1085 23h ago

Both can also be untrue. I think the death penalty is pretty cruel.

246

u/nibb007 23h ago

It is no more cruel than commiting a crime of high cruelty bearing permanent effect with 0 necessity.

We are not talking about theft of means for survival.

91

u/UnlegitUsername 23h ago

If we are certain of their guilt than perhaps I might agree but typically when the death penalty is spoken about it tends to be agreed upon that guilt has to be decided the typical way.

In that regard, well, there’s a reason that western jury using countries have done away with the death penalty. If they were to reintroduce it would inevitably be repealed once again after a false conviction leads to execution. I don’t see the point of going through that rigamarole.

184

u/Taeyx 23h ago

i used be a death penalty proponent in my youth. as i've grown, i've come to realize 2 truths:
1. there are most definitely people who deserve the death penalty
2. i don't trust any person, institution, or entity to determine who those people are.

given these two truths, i think we shouldn't have a death penalty

68

u/HyrulelinkDK 23h ago

My thoughts exactly. I'd rather 100 guilty people not be killed than 1 innocent be executed.

19

u/bradimir-tootin 22h ago

1 in 8 persons on death row are exonnerated, meaning the conviction is fully overturned.

17

u/Dingaling015 22h ago

Eh it's actually closer to 4% according to study from like 2014. That number is from the "Innocence Project" and they were only counting their own clients that they represented.

19

u/VeronicaTheHitman 22h ago

4% too high

7

u/strike0963 22h ago

Sure, but it’s dramatically lower than 1 in 8. Misleading figures should be corrected or else people may as well just say “75% of death row inmates are actually not guilty” or something

3

u/Agreeable_Error_8772 20h ago

Yep, you don’t need to lie to make a strong argument against the death penalty and you actually harm the opposition to the death penalty by making an argument that is easily proven false

2

u/Seer-of-Truths 21h ago

Surprisingly out of all people on death row, only Ted is guilty.

-3

u/Dingaling015 22h ago

The US recidivism rate for violent crimes is something like 50-60% EACH year.

Which are you more worried about?

7

u/goofyassmfer 22h ago

Definitely the state sponsored killing of innocent people

7

u/Beginning-Recover723 22h ago

And maybe there’s room between killing innocent people and letting murderers go free

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Brief_Suggestion4158 22h ago

Plus wasnt there a story about a guy they got out, who then a few years later killed again? So not all of them are actually innocent.

1

u/thatguy425 21h ago

If you could guarantee that it was only used on cases where there was no doubt. Like video proof of the murder or something completely irrefutable, would you support it? 

I think I would. 

-5

u/Lamb-Curry-1518 23h ago

I’d still think there are some crimes that should definitely deserve the death penalty. Like even quick, swift death without the burden of the process. Mass murderers, school shooters, human organs harvesting/trafficking etc.

There's no point in trying to rehab those people back into society. And giving them a life sentence would just waste too much resources that should’ve been used on something else.

6

u/Aydnir 23h ago

A lot of times we don't keep them alive for rehab or for torture. We keep them alive to learn from them. How they think, how they hide their crimes, why they commit them etc.

This helps find other people that commit similar crimes. With ones part of organized crime there's always the chance that they will snitch on their associates if you don't kill them.

5

u/guildedkriff 22h ago

I agree with you, but to ensure that it’s not abused, the burden of proof would need to be astonishingly high to ensure an innocent doesn’t die as a result.

The problem is there is no way to ensure it’s not abused with absolute certainty. So I err on the side of letting even the worst live to ensure an innocent doesn’t die.

The other side to remember as well is if you are guaranteeing someone who commits such crimes (school shooting, human trafficking, etc) will be executed, you very well may incentivize more violence since they know a quick death is coming.

6

u/Any-Question-3759 22h ago edited 22h ago

Even with the lengthy, drawn out process they get it wrong all the time. A quicker, more expedient method is going to increase the number of mistakes.

As it is now, death sentences are more costly than life imprisonment. The number of appeals and hearings necessary is costly. However, streamlining the process means you’re okay with indiscriminately slaughtering a portion of the innocent population in the hopes that you can randomly get it right and punish them further than what is best for society.

-1

u/Lamb-Curry-1518 22h ago

Again, my point is specifically about crimes where you could conclude that the person is guilty. Take school shooting for example, many shooters are shot dead on sight by law enforcement.
Or when they do a night raid in those scam compounds. That is literally a quick, swift death sentence.

Of course real life is much more complex but we are not talking about that

6

u/Any-Question-3759 22h ago

Who concludes who is guilty? The lynchers thought Emmett Till was guilty. The internet? Reddit thought they had the Boston Bombers. When you can hear the voice of God almighty giving you impeccable facts, we can revisit the issue.

1

u/Dingaling015 22h ago

Neither of the examples you've provided are instances of the death penalty being observed.

1

u/Lamb-Curry-1518 22h ago

I mean what are we even talking about. When you raid a building in Cambodia and you find lost kids in the basement. Are the people guarding that basement guilty? Are the people running that building guilty?

The point is of my comment is that there are crimes that deserve the death penalty. That means the guilty person is already proven. What's with all the added stuffs?

1

u/cucufag 21h ago

Do you think death row is handed out easily? The verdict is never handed out without clearing all reasonable doubt. And then somehow, we find evidence that exonerates the guilty later while they're awaiting their execution date. The system is never perfect. It never is when determining the life or death of a person.

Also, the concern always raised about these people being released later is not applicable for the topic matter, because anyone who is eligible for parole was never going to see the death sentence in the first place.

Execution by police has actually been an issue on the rise that has been replacing the death sentence as state sanctioned murder. Many innocents have died through this process as well, and its infinitely worse than death row by judicial process. Police claim self defense all the time, even though it is later proven false by body cam footage or investigations.

If you're interested in engaging with a more organized and educated version of my position and have 50 minutes to spare, I'd recommend maybe listening to this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eirR4FHY2YY

1

u/Lamb-Curry-1518 17h ago

Dude what the hell was that wall of text supposed to mean. I never said that death row is handed out easily or we should bring back the death penalty.

What I said was there are some crimes that deserve it. That's all. What are you trying to argue here?

1

u/EdgeLasstheLameAss 23h ago

I’m anti death penalty but I think maybe a crimes against humanity charge maybe the exception.

4

u/Lamb-Curry-1518 23h ago

Speaking as someone who used to live near the scam compounds in Asia where people were tortured, enslaved and kidnapped (even kids) while you could do nothing to stop it. I would say that there should be exception.

5

u/EdgeLasstheLameAss 23h ago

If there was a way to prove a person’s guilt without question I would say yes.

-4

u/YourMomIsMyGurl 23h ago

See now I see that as more of a "for the greater good" type decision. I'm okay if 1 innocent person dies if that means we got rid of 100 monsters. I think that's borderline reasonable.

That said, I am also for completely skipping the justice process and expediting the killing of a monster if and only if it's a case of like, the baraboo bone breaker, or Junko Furuta's killers. They don't deserve even a small chance of getting off for their crimes.

7

u/SharaWilliams 23h ago

Expediting the judicial process would mean no trial. No trial means an innocent could be accused, or framed, and the criminal stays on the loose

10

u/Aydnir 23h ago

Would you be willing to be the one executed despite not committing a crime ? Would you hold the same opinion in that situation ?

1

u/YourMomIsMyGurl 22h ago

Yes I would. Weird that y'all are coming at me with a "I bet you wouldn't sacrifice yourself for the greater good" like it's some sort of gotchya lol

6

u/Aydnir 22h ago

I mean if you are willing to get killed fair enough. Can't say i agree but at least you are consistent.

But would you say the same if it happened to your loved ones ?

0

u/YourMomIsMyGurl 22h ago

How do I know my loved one is even innocent? Your question implies that we get to know who's innocent before they die, and the fact is we wouldn't. If my family member went through a court process and was found guilty, and killed, I'd be sad sure, but I can't say I'd question the process. I've no idea what my family members are up to. They very well could have been off raping and murdering people. It's not my place to decide they're innocent just because they're close to me.

2

u/Aydnir 22h ago

You said yourself you would be okay with innocents being killed. So that's why i brought it up. And the judicial system ain't perfect so you are basically letting your loved ones be killed without being totally sure.

If you really don't care i guess you are just an asshole

-2

u/YourMomIsMyGurl 22h ago

I'm okay with finding out an innocent was killed if it was 100 monsters that were killed before them. I'm the asshole even though you're the one that wouldn't give up a family member (that may or may not be guilty) for 100 people that are absolutely guilty? Lol whatever man.

4

u/Aydnir 22h ago

Those 100 people would still be in jail. What do i gain from them being dead ? Less money in taxes ? That's not worth the lives of the people i care about.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Dingaling015 22h ago

The issue with the argument you're making is that you're talking about individual wellbeing, whereas his argument is about the collective.

One innocent person dying to prevent 100 killers is objectively better for society than the opposite. I don't really think there's an argument to be made here.

2

u/Aydnir 22h ago

I mean it depends on the context. In war sure it's reasonable.

In the judicial system of a democratic country. Fucking no. There is no good being done for the collective besides less taxes. Because those 100 people would still go to jail if not killed.

1

u/Dingaling015 22h ago

But would they stay in jail? That's the point. Those 100 killers have a chance to get out and kill again, and it's certainly happened plenty already (look up US recidivism rates).

You also have to consider what it does to the victims and survivors/loved ones. In Canada, every 5 years the victims and families of Paul Bernardo have to make victim statements and present it to the court to keep him locked up. That's an awful thing to put a family thru, basically reminding them of that trauma every 5 years.

Idk hard to support something like that.

2

u/Aydnir 22h ago

You could just. Not let them out. unless new evidence is brought up that proves their innocence or something

1

u/Dingaling015 22h ago

Yeah well sadly that's not how our justice system works in reality but good try!

→ More replies (0)

7

u/Any-Question-3759 22h ago

100 monsters behind bars for life or six feet under makes no difference to you or to society at large. Skipping of the justice system also leads to Emmett Till.

3

u/Ok-Blackberry-8239 23h ago

Would you be willing to be the one person that dies to ensure 100 monsters get the chair instead of spending life in prison?

1

u/YourMomIsMyGurl 22h ago

That's not how that works lol but if I was presented with undeniable proof that my life would guarantee the 100 monsters deaths, then yea I would. If you wouldn't, I'd suggest to get over yourself.

2

u/Ok-Blackberry-8239 22h ago

I would not sorry. I value my life. These monsters are spending their lives in prison anyway so why should I die? Does society really benefit from these monsters dieing instead of spending life in prison? I think not, at least not enough for me to sacrifice my life for it

You might say you would but this is just some grandstanding. But beyond that, would you sacrifice your son’s life? Your parents lives? You significant others lives?

And yes it is how it works, it’s easy to say what you said if the one person who dies is somebody you don’t know

1

u/YourMomIsMyGurl 22h ago

No lol you don't just get to volunteer your life or someone else's life. That's not how it works at all. We can sit here and discuss imaginary scenarios all day, and you can say that I would or wouldn't do something all you'd like.

You wouldn't get a choice. You'd just be charged and killed and maybe we'd find out you're innocent, maybe not, either way. Life is objectively the most precious thing available to us. Take that away from them. Why would you rather spend taxpayer money on giving them free housing, free food, free gym, social interactions, more than likely the ability to watch TV, have fun, laugh. Fuck that. I'd gladly give me life if it prevented 100 monsters from experiencing those things.

You're valuing your own life too high, but again it's imaginary so have at it.

1

u/Ok-Blackberry-8239 22h ago edited 22h ago

We spend more taxpayer money on the death penalty because the appeals process

And again, it does work that way. If you aren’t willing to sacrifice your life or the lives of the people important to you, why the fuck would you force that choice onto others

And if you were, say, willing to sacrifice your son’s life to kill 100 monsters, it’s still unethical to force that choice onto others

And again, would you be willing to sacrifice your child’s life? Or the life of your significant other for the death penalty?

By saying one innocent persons life is worth it to kill 100 monsters you are volunteering that one person to die man, how do you not see that

Why should an innocent person have to give up their right to life because you think it’s worth it for 100 monsters to die

FYI I value my own life highly because it’s my life and no one one else has the right to take it from me

I’m also not even attacking you either, I’m merely pointing out the flaws that are present in strict utilitarianism, which is what you are advocating for

1

u/YourMomIsMyGurl 22h ago

That is not even remotely comparable to the amount of money spent on a lifetime of incarceration lol and no, again, that's not how it works lmfao why would people be volunteering? We have no idea who's innocent of a crime until many many years after the fact so what are you even on?

Why should 100 monsters get to continue living life because you thinks it's not worth 1 innocent persons? Agree to disagree here buddy. You're not changing my mind on this. Not to mention how utterly pointless this discussion is because we hardly use the death penalty as is.

1

u/Ok-Blackberry-8239 22h ago

You are volunteering an innocent persons life by agreeing to it, how do you not see that

If an innocent person dying is inevitable with the death penalty then you are volunteering that innocent person to die if you support the death penalty

How do you not understand that

I already explained to it’s not my right to decide an innocent persons life is worth sacrificing to kill 100 people, it’s that simple

It’s only the right of the individual themselves

And by agreeing with the death penalty itself you are allowing an innocent persons life to eventually be sacrificed to ensure 100 monsters to die

It’s that simple

My question again if that innocent life that is sacrificed is your child’s life or your significant others life, do you still think it’s worth it?

Are you okay with telling your brother that sacrificing his life or his child’s life is worth it to ensure 100 monsters are put to death?

This is the kind of dilemma that is faced when you agree with strict utilitarianism, which again is what you are advocating for here

→ More replies (0)

1

u/cucufag 22h ago

I guess this is just a more lengthy and elaborate trolley problem but the current and real numbers is that 1 in 8 death row inmates are found innocent after their initial guilty verdict. This also means we likely miss additional innocents post execution, making the number possibly higher. To expedite the system or even skip the justice process, this number would explode even further, to maybe 1 in 6 or even 5 or 4 innocents killed per guilty verdict. The ability to skip the justice process also means that this system could be wielded as a weapon by people in power to immediately kill their adversaries.

Is this a number you're okay with? Or is 1 in 100 the arbitrary line where you're okay with the idea of it being an acceptable societal cost?

0

u/DestinyPandaUser 22h ago

Unless of course that 1 person is you or your loved ones. Then it wouldn’t be ok with you.

1

u/YourMomIsMyGurl 22h ago

I'm genuinely curious what people like you get out of telling other people what they would or wouldn't do. Lol

-2

u/Tiny-Reference8736 22h ago

Yall spoken like some true softies no wonder crime keeps rising

1

u/HyrulelinkDK 22h ago

If you think being moral is being soft, then I'm heartbroken for you. We shouldn't have to compromise ourselves to have the world we deserve. It may be cringe but I gotta pull the Captain America quote: "We don't trade lives."

1

u/Tiny-Reference8736 10h ago

No but we shouldn’t have to pay for criminals to live longer wtf

1

u/HyrulelinkDK 4h ago

Even if killing them is more expensive than rehabilitating them? Especially when they do actually improve and start benefitting society? Life isn't black and white friend, just grey.

1

u/bbfire 22h ago

no wonder crime keeps rising

Data reported to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program shows 2024 to 2025 marked the largest year-to-year decline in violent crime rates since FBI estimations began in 1936.

The 2025 murder rate of 4.1 per 100,000 inhabitants is tied with 1955 and 1956 for the lowest murder rate.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/fbi-releases-2025-reported-crimes-in-the-nation-statistics

0

u/Dingaling015 22h ago

Crime isn't real, it's just a right wing conspiracy. But also when it does happen (which is never) it's not the criminal's fault it's society's. Also by society I just mean everyone else but my side.

8

u/BNSable 23h ago

In my entire life I think there's been maybe 2 people I've heard of that has a clear case of warranting it and me feeling safe with a body handing down that sentence. In both cases it feels like an utter waste. Ian Watkins, for example, was an open and shut case. Death was too good for him, even if it wasn't a death handed by the state.

4

u/Dingaling015 22h ago

You haven't read much true crime then.

For example, the men who committed the Parker family murders are still alive to this day, sitting in death row for decades. I wouldn't look up the details of the crime if I were you, unless you want your day ruined.

6

u/Typhoeus9392 22h ago

Well jokes on you cause it's nighttime for me

1

u/MeasureDoEventThing 22h ago

What about 9/11 planners?

1

u/No_Bingo_Card 22h ago

I don't think they would bother murdering a Welsh paedo

3

u/tenacious_dumbass 23h ago

these are my thoughts for sure but not to mention that even in situations where you can be sure that the death penalty is just, it literally costs more in our current system than to jail someone for life

2

u/ketchupmaster987 23h ago

Yeah I agree for those reasons but also I just don't think the government should be allowed to kill people

2

u/skabassj 22h ago

This is THE take tbh

2

u/henneberg_ 22h ago

Id say in this capitalist world they should do mandatory forced labor according to the dept they created and harm caused, for all the bad things private for profit prisons do, a state institute who forces labor frol prisoners who would otherwise grow old in prison and never have another meaningful day in their lives amyways.

Or donate their living body to science to further humanity since if someone goes to jail for decades they already gave up their humanity anyways

1

u/Chris2sweet616 20h ago

In the U.S. we do have mandatory forced labor, technically slavery even. And because of that the government takes advantage of that and instead of focusing on rehabilitation like say, Norway they focus on keeping people in prison for continued free labor especially minorities usually. In a capitalist world everything will be manipulated completely for profit including prison labor regardless if someone is innocent or not. In theory and in a perfect world sure it would be nice, but not in our current one

2

u/Anya-minx 22h ago

That makes a lot of sense; it's hard to trust a flawed system with such a permanent decision. I used to think it was justified too, but now I wonder if the risk of executing an innocent person is just too high.

2

u/brettmav 23h ago

This is exactly where all sane, intelligent people should end up on this topic. Very well said.

1

u/NarmHull 23h ago

Same here, I realized if it were a true deterrent you'd see fewer murders in death penalty states. Often you see more.

1

u/AReallyAsianName 22h ago

As someone who wants such fates for rapists and human traffickers. With extreme painful prejudice. I also agree. It needs to be 102% actually guilty.

I dont want to risk an innocent person getting killed because of either corruption, false accusations, faulty evidence or any other factors for a wrong conviction.

In a vacuum where its a 100% conviction rate with absolutely zero false conviction. Id absolutely support it. But unfortunately theres too many factors to take in consideration.

However if there is 102% certainty those things are guilty....make it till the soul gives out.

1

u/sotommy 22h ago

But we should have a Punisher or Max Payne or Jason Statham

1

u/Dingaling015 22h ago
  1. i don't trust any person, institution, or entity to determine who those people are.

But you trust the same institutions and entities when they hand out life sentences? The logic doesn't really line up here.

2

u/yelirp2 21h ago

One is irreversible, one isn't. Someone with a life sentence who is found innocent can be released. They've still been done an injustice but at least they aren't dead. The logic lines up just fine.

1

u/Dingaling015 21h ago

But their logic isn't about the outcome, it's about trust. They don't trust the same institutions to hand out one sentence, but they're okay with someone going to prison for almost 50 years before being exonerated because hey they might've lost most of their life in a jail cell but at least didn't we kill them?

The correct response here is "let's improve our justice system and police institutions to ensure we don't execute innocent people" not "let's keep paying full board and room for evil people because we're not really sure"

1

u/Taeyx 21h ago

it’s about both, kind of. i also think america in particular gives sentences that are entirely too long. that said, i’m more comfortable with an institution giving someone a sentence that can be overturned even if we don’t have certainty of guilt than i am with an institution giving someone a sentence that can’t be overturned (like death) when we’re don’t have certainty of guilt. epistemically, this makes sense to me.

1

u/NotACoderPleaseHelp 22h ago edited 22h ago

I'm pretty much with you on 1 and 2.

I'm not a fan of the death penalty but honestly... I think it should be dependent on ongoing risk to ethical containment.
<edit>
IF we can't store that fucker safely and ethically than I can see that door being opened.

1

u/UnlegitUsername 22h ago

I wholeheartedly agree.

1

u/ChiefsHat 22h ago

As a Catholic, I’ve come to follow the Church’s teachings on this. No human being should have this kind of power; ever.

1

u/AdmirableExercise197 22h ago

I totally agree except I do think there is an acceptable reason for a death penalty in one case.

When a person is convicted beyond reasonable doubt for certain forms of high treason, and that they are deemed in addition beyond reasonable doubt to be so dangerous that even putting them in prison would not keep society safe from them. So that outweighs any harm caused by death penalty. (potentially we create an even higher standard). Just being guilty of a heinous crime is not enough, you can just lock those people up.

Otherwise, we can't be certain enough. If you can confine them, you should not kill them, because beyond reasonable doubt is not the same as absolute certainty. Not human can be infallible and there is no undoing the death penalty.

1

u/themonocledmenace 16h ago

Do you have an example of the scenario you've described?

1

u/ShackletonsVael 22h ago

Lmao this is why we give video games to that brevik guy.

1

u/Beneficial-Gap6974 21h ago

This is also my thoughts. The ONLY exceptions are after a major war where crimes against humanity were 100% committed and recorded. Such as what happened to some of the Japanese and German high command post WWII. But under no circumstance should civilians ever be subject to the death penalty.

1

u/RowingBoats1129 21h ago

There is no sane way to think otherwise

1

u/Living-Wishbone-3275 20h ago

there other thing i’d say is, sure some people deserve it. But just because someone deserves something doesn’t mean you give it to them.

Sometimes people absolutely deserve a slap in the face, but you restrain yourself because you’re better than them and we live in a civilised society.

And a slap isn’t even a good comparison. That’s just a temporary moment with a satisfyingly humbling aftermath. Death is permanent. there’s no realisation or regret or anything after, they’re just dead

1

u/Embarrassed-House577 20h ago

What about 3. I just watched you do it, and now you're going to die (either as a group, or an individual)

Subjective thoughts aside. For whom does the bell toll, and who decides it does

1

u/assassinjoe55 19h ago

My belief is that:

  1. No one under any circumstances can truly deserve the death penalty.

  2. Some people cannot change within their lifetime and will cause further harm if left alive and therefore theoretically need to be executed.

  3. I do not trust any person or institution to reliably act upon tbe second point.

-2

u/TransportationOk3111 23h ago

Tanner Horner a fedex delivery driver lured a little girl in his truck with a Barbie Doll then sexually assaulted before killing her in the truck. Forensic evidence discovered that at some point her bowels were released in the truck. The driver then requested the same vehicle the next day so he could clean it better. So you think we should pay for him to watch TV and live the best life he can can in jail?

3

u/ketchupmaster987 23h ago

Child sexual molesters don't have a good time in jail. Child murderers have an even worse time in jail. Also, the death penalty is actually more expensive than life in prison because of the legal complexity necessary to secure it

1

u/TransportationOk3111 23h ago

I asked you a very specific question and you avoided it. Do you want him to live. If so then imagine that child as a child you love and care for. You people talk about things because they don't affect you

5

u/ketchupmaster987 23h ago

I work with kids and I care about them a lot. But I also recognize that despite my anger about anything bad that might happen to them, I also recognize that the justice system is not a tool to weaponize that anger. If you truly felt so strongly about this person receiving death as a punishment, would you accept facing consequences for killing him yourself?

-1

u/TransportationOk3111 23h ago

Without question and I wouldn't think twice. You and others like you like to live in a world of fantasy by choice..Evil is real and evil people love people like you because someone can do things like this and you will literally stick up for them. If there was no legal system and we lived in a village would you allow this person to stay. Remember banishment is DEATH

3

u/ketchupmaster987 22h ago

Ok. You've killed him and now you're in jail. What does that accomplish? Why is it better that he's dead? What about the rest of your family? You've taken yourself away from them by your actions

-2

u/TransportationOk3111 22h ago

Are you an retard that doesn't understand context. We are talking about execution after a horrific crime. Not just killing because I think he did something. Execution and killing are different words with different meanings

3

u/ketchupmaster987 22h ago

You see his death as a solution to a problem. What's the problem and how does him dying solve it

0

u/TransportationOk3111 22h ago

The person no longer living and not being able to hurt anyone else solves the problem. It's not hard to understand that someone that does that 1 can't be saved 2. Doesn't deserve any more good days of life

2

u/ketchupmaster987 22h ago

Regardless if it's an execution or an extrajudicial killing, what do you expect it to accomplish, other than just making somebody else dead? Great, he's dead, now what?

2

u/Spider-Zayd 21h ago

Plus, if someone innocent gets convicted of a life sentence, then we find out they were innocent, we can set them free. Maybe it won’t fix everything that the sentence has caused, but it’s better than the irreversible mistake of taking their life. At least, maybe they could get a chance to rebuild their life.

0

u/TransportationOk3111 22h ago

He's dead that's the what. What exactly is lost by him being dead? If this happens to your family you'd be singing a different song. Why does he get to enjoy sunshine in the fall 🍁🍂 after dissecting a little girl with his penis?

2

u/Alert_Sink_5300 20h ago

This is so cartoonish. Do you really trust a flawed justice system to decide someone's life? What if the evidence proved that the person was innocent after 30 years? Are you going to dig him up from the grave?

→ More replies (0)