Capital Punishment Debate: Justice or Torture? | FriendZone
Summary
The FriendZone | Make Friends ⋅ Fun Chill Active Chat ⋅ VC Social Gaming ⋅ Memes ⋅ Nitro Emojis ⋅ Anime community is currently engaged in a deep philosophical debate regarding the ethics of capital punishment. Members are discussing whether life imprisonment or alternative forms of punishment are more moral than the death penalty. This thread highlights the diverse perspectives within the server on justice, human rights, and the morality of state-sanctioned killing.
you can't just kill people so that they won't kill others
ys
Verified
and tbh keeping a man inside jail if the worst you can do they prolly need therapy/help (i am talking about people with pesky crimes like Robber or theft)
❄️
They rot in hell
We can and many countries have death penalty....
premeditated mass murder, terrorism, or serial killings are fundamentally different from ordinary crimes yk ..many people argue that such acts can justify the harshest legal punishment
if countries are doing wrong things that doesn't make it right
for the worst of all the crimes the lifetime torture should be given but for small crimes jail/rehabs do exist
ikr
giving an easy death to people is bad and torturing them is better i don't believe in hell or heaven i believe in present
yeppp yk lifetime torture isnt justice..its prolonged cruelty..it costs more, creates more suffering, and increases the risk of torturing someone who was wrongly convicted...life imprisonment already protects society without crossing that line
110 countries that have the death penalty compared to 23 countries that don't and in that case the 110 countries are doing the right thing
by that logic, if most countries did something immoral, it would become moral...the number of countries supporting a policy doesnt determine whether its ethically or legally justified buddy ..we judge policies by evidence, fairness, and human rights...not by the data of sm majority
lifetime imprisonment do exist and talking about wrong conviction that's the inability of court to provide justice
major part of people on earth pollute their environment so are they right?
Exactly and why would you think that 110 countries with different laws ethics and all would agree with the death penalty while 23 countries that most of them have big crime rate don't agree with.... a killer should he killed and eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth basic as that...
u r assuming that because many countries have the death penalty, it must be the right policy...thts an appeal to popularity, not evidence..countries have different legal systems, histories, and values...what matters is whether the policy is effective, fair, and justice..not how many governments use it
also..saying countries without the death penalty have higher crime rates doesnt prove the death penalty reduces crime...crime rates are influenced by many factors like poverty, policing, education, economic conditions, and social stability...u would need evidence showing the death penalty itself causes lower crime
No obviously but my point is a killer should die for what he did but you chose to leave him alive in a prison which is not even immoral it's like throw him into prison and keep him there.... yk death is merciful sometimes killing him is a mercy for what he did but you say no we should keep him in prison and torture him like that would put any good results....
What did i just say it's effective fair and justified and many countries do it.....
are u supporting the topic?
doesnt seem like tht
or i might be slow
By many factors you would say that if the crime rate in the 23 countries without death penalty would rise??
punishing r@@e with jail rather than death leads to better justice to the victims because the certainty of conviction protects victims while death punishment only causes underreporting there is a research that talks about this
can you provide us some examples?
If they were in prison for life i might agree but many countries rarely put someone to life in prison....
im js saying u cant assume crime would rise just because the death penalty is removed..crime is influenced by many factors...if you believe the death penalty itself prevents crime, then the burden is on you to show evidence that its the reason...not just point to countries that have it
tru
again is the courts fault and it will need revision if we apply this policy
wait lemme show you this
htt ps://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/09/india-death-penalty-never-the-solution-to-crime-and-violence-against-women/ (i read this)
Many factors and fear is a big factor if fear exists without punishment there's no point in punishment....
You can dm me if you want
nahh it's fine the server didn't remove the link
space is at the 3rd place
I agree that mercy should be ahead of punishment in saudi arabia you can't serve the death penalty until there is 4 witnesses that saw the killer kill the victim
death penalty is really rare then
Yeah pretty much
Because Islamic law prioritizes mercy over punishment.
ohh didn't knew that
Yeah
fear is indeed one factor, but its not the deciding one...if fear alone prevented crime, countries with the death penalty would have the lowest murder rates, and thts not consistently the case
trie
That's what am talking about fear will stop them and if it didn't punishment will
yepp exactly ..if there's no real fear of consequences, some people will be less discouraged from committing serious crimes yk
Exactly
