Death penalty

Do you thinks death penalty is morally acceptable?

Maybe not.

Death penalty is the end of someone's life which can lead some people to have issue with it. For instance, you could say that you play according to the criminal's rules and that you're as low as him in the end for punishing someone who might have killed by killing and then pretending to be on the side of the "justice". You could also argue that mistakes happens and that some innocent persons are killed, but if death penalty has obvious downsides, it would be more likely replaced with life imprisonment if you stop practicing it, so you could ask the question differently : Is death penalty less morally acceptable than life imprisonment ?

I personally see various problems coming with life imprisonment. To keep it short, here is a non exhaustive list :
- You could jail an innocent person as well, and the carceral envrionment might give them trauma that 1-2-10 millions $ will not compensate duly. Is killing an innocent objectively worse than killing it?
- Is being chained with no hope to see the outside world, for decades, anymore better than death?
- Is letting someone that could radicalized and recruit new complete nuts in a prison worth? Is it compatible with the said goal of jails to reintegrate inmates in the society?
- Is it worth spending time, efforts and money in chronic offenders?

- You could jail an innocent person as well, and the carceral envrionment might give them trauma that 1-2-10 millions $ will not compensate duly. Is killing an innocent objectively worse than killing it?

Yes, killing someone is objectively worse. No matter what religion you believe in, I feel you can accept that there is a chance that there is nothing after death. To take away years of someones life and to give them trauma is horrible but to take someones life from them, even in the case of guilty people, is something a government should not have the ability to do.

- Is being chained with no hope to see the outside world, for decades, anymore better than death?

This is really subjective, not all inmates are alone. Yes, it has lasting affects on a person but to stay in contact with family of anyone on the outside for some people that is enough to want to keep living.

- Is letting someone that could radicalized and recruit new complete nuts in a prison worth? Is it compatible with the said goal of jails to reintegrate inmates in the society?

If people are being radicalised in a prison, if people are repeat offenders, that has nothing to do with whether the death penalty exists or not. These things are signs of a broken prison system that fails to rehabilitate inmates. One of the most broken prison systems, at least in a democratic country, is that of the USA they have the death penalty but also 2 million prison population, 22% of the world. Their prison system is broken, they are not reintegrating people into society and the death penalty isn't changing that.

- Is it worth spending time, efforts and money in chronic offenders?

It is actually much cheaper to keep a prisoner in prison for life than to execute them. Look it up.

Yes, killing someone is objectively worse. No matter what religion you believe in, I feel you can accept that there is a chance that there is nothing after death. To take away years of someones life and to give them trauma is horrible but to take someones life from them, even in the case of guilty people, is something a government should not have the ability to do.

How is that objective? Is emptiness/"nothing" something "bad"? Having nothing after X is inherently worse than continuing X? So euthanasia for a pet or for a human under some conditions and in some countries are just bad as well because it gives a stop to a sacralized life?
If you put death on a balance with any amount of pain, then it would mean that death is always heavier than anything in this case, and if death is heavier than anything, then I could take you, cut you in slices, reap your eyes away, poison you, make you unable to sleep, to breather or to eat properly and as long as I maintain you alive, then I should get a lighter punishment than someone who has killed a person for whatever reason.
That's obviously an extreme to make the issue I see more obvious, but the core idea (at least from what I get from you) is here.

This is really subjective, not all inmates are alone. Yes, it has lasting affects on a person but to stay in contact with family of anyone on the outside for some people that is enough to want to keep living.

Being alone or not isn't a problem, and not being alone wouldn't prevent from being lonely either. You can indeed have some people for which life in prison is like going to a club and, in this case, life there is probably going smoothly enough for them, but you also have people for which prisons aren't a heavenly place. Since it's subjective to determine if getting a life imprisonment is more appreciable than a death sentence, how can one justify to forbid one, but not the other?

If people are being radicalised in a prison, if people are repeat offenders, that has nothing to do with whether the death penalty exists or not. These things are signs of a broken prison system that fails to rehabilitate inmates. One of the most broken prison systems, at least in a democratic country, is that of the USA they have the death penalty but also 2 million prison population, 22% of the world. Their prison system is broken, they are not reintegrating people into society and the death penalty isn't changing that.

It has to do with it. Death penalty is a way to stop those people from offending more or to radicalize and ruin other inimate's rehabilitation perspectives just like you can fire an employee that just do shit.
Now you want to go to the root problem by extrapolating that it's prisons' fault if some people keep doing shit and I personally highly doubt it. It's probably true in a good amount of case, but does it mean that it's true in any case? Does it also mean that you can have sure way to rehabilitate inmates properly and is it economically viable? Is it worth for the society?

Because USA is doing crap isn't an argument. US citizen also have the right to get gun and the fact that there are multiple mass shootings there is used as an argument against guns, but Switzerland which is very liberal on guns is one of the safest countries, so is the problem death penatly or the way US deal with it..? What I mean here is that I'm not living in the US and the context in France or in another country is different from there, and that USA is, imo, in nothing an example (at absically everything).

Back to the viability of the rehabilitation way, you could take acountry like Norway to say that it's working, but once again, I'd argue that it's contextual, and I'd also argue that Norway is a repectively small and economically prosperous country in comparison to others. Hence, could you apply a similar system to a bigger country like France? I honestly doubt it.

It is actually much cheaper to keep a prisoner in prison for life than to execute them. Look it up.

I'm not talking about financial cost and this is not necessarily true. A chronic offender is rarely someone on whom you have to spend a lot of money to be sure if he is guilty or not. Futhermore, you don't take in consideration the economical harm that this offender could do with his crimes and taking an extreme case, we've people here who stole 800 millions to the country; are those people less expensive to be put to deaht that to keep alive? Hmm...

How is that objective? Is emptiness/"nothing" something "bad"? Having nothing after X is inherently worse than continuing X? So euthanasia for a pet or for a human under some conditions and in some countries are just bad as well because it gives a stop to a sacralized life?
If you put death on a balance with any amount of pain, then it would mean that death is always heavier than anything in this case, and if death is heavier than anything, then I could take you, cut you in slices, reap your eyes away, poison you, make you unable to sleep, to breather or to eat properly and as long as I maintain you alive, then I should get a lighter punishment than someone who has killed a person for whatever reason.
That's obviously an extreme to make the issue I see more obvious, but the core idea (at least from what I get from you) is here.

To start, objective was bad wording on my part, sorry. Anyways, the main issue I see with your whole response is the way you effectively, whether intentional or not, addressed my response as a stand alone thing ignoring the context of the question I was responding to. "Is killing a person worse than putting them in jail for life?" So to put it in the format you used: Having nothing is inherently worse than continuing a life sentence. Also, I think it's important to note here, when I say nothing after death; to me it is a complete nothingness, something no one will ever feel as in essence it doesn't exist. So maybe 'nothing' doesn't get my point across as I want it to. In the context of life imprisonment: it is better to experience that and be alive than to not exist at all.

Being alone or not isn't a problem, and not being alone wouldn't prevent from being lonely either. You can indeed have some people for which life in prison is like going to a club and, in this case, life there is probably going smoothly enough for them, but you also have people for which prisons aren't a heavenly place. Since it's subjective to determine if getting a life imprisonment is more appreciable than a death sentence, how can one justify to forbid one, but not the other?

‘Being alone’ was simply an example I was using to respond to your point, which I understood as: life imprisonment can be on par with death. Thinking about your point in that sense, I have a slightly different argument. I would ask you this:
Is a system where imprisonment is worse than death moral?
I would say it’s completely immoral. It’s inhumane. Furthermore, how can you justify an immoral system having the ability to kill a person?
If a justice system is immoral it is broken. How could anyone trust that a broken system is executing people who truly deserve it? And, in a case where someone does deserve it and if the death penalty is better that life imprisonment, is it not then an act of mercy not punishment?

Prisons are not a heavenly place and I don’t necessarily think they should be, but there is a huge difference between a heavenly place and what you’re describing as a place that would make a person suicidal.
So, “how can one justify to forbid one, but not the other?” Well, the existence of a death penalty how you are describing it essentially creates a moral paradox. If a system has the death penalty and it is moral to have because it is preferable to life imprisonment, than that system is immoral (humans innately want to survive, so there is something inherently wrong with a system that causes them to wish for death). In a system like that, removing the death penalty would force them to be more moral and I see no reason why a moral system would begin using the death penalty as they have no reason to. In this way, the death penalty is intrinsically linked to an immoral system.

It has to do with it. Death penalty is a way to stop those people from offending more or to radicalize and ruin other inimate's rehabilitation perspectives just like you can fire an employee that just do shit.
Now you want to go to the root problem by extrapolating that it's prisons' fault if some people keep doing shit and I personally highly doubt it. It's probably true in a good amount of case, but does it mean that it's true in any case? Does it also mean that you can have sure way to rehabilitate inmates properly and is it economically viable? Is it worth for the society?

Because USA is doing crap isn't an argument. US citizen also have the right to get gun and the fact that there are multiple mass shootings there is used as an argument against guns, but Switzerland which is very liberal on guns is one of the safest countries, so is the problem death penatly or the way US deal with it..? What I mean here is that I'm not living in the US and the context in France or in another country is different from there, and that USA is, imo, in nothing an example (at absically everything).

Back to the viability of the rehabilitation way, you could take acountry like Norway to say that it's working, but once again, I'd argue that it's contextual, and I'd also argue that Norway is a repectively small and economically prosperous country in comparison to others. Hence, could you apply a similar system to a bigger country like France? I honestly doubt it.

My argument is not “USA is doing crap”, I’m using the USA as a statistical example because I am debating with someone from France. Like France the USA is a democractic and, for lack of a better word, ‘western’ country. I am not going to use Belarus or Russia as an example because they are both essentially authoritarian, and many of the other countries with the death penalty just don’t have a lot of statitics about them. So, I am using the USA as a, relatively, similar example to pull statistics from to aid my argument. Also, sidenote, whether or not a country has guns is unrelated to its safety, that is a debate about gun laws not guns.

As for the rest of the argument here about rehabilitation, I wasn’t saying there was anything inherently wrong with the french prison system, or that it doesn’t rehabilitate people. I was just observing that the death penalty doesn’t aid this. For example, in France the percentage of prisoners that reoffend is around 14% and in the US is 43%, if the death penalty had a actual positive impact on the amount of prisoners reintergrated we would see drastically different statistics here.

I'm not talking about financial cost and this is not necessarily true. A chronic offender is rarely someone on whom you have to spend a lot of money to be sure if he is guilty or not. Futhermore, you don't take in consideration the economical harm that this offender could do with his crimes and taking an extreme case, we've people here who stole 800 millions to the country; are those people less expensive to be put to deaht that to keep alive? Hmm...

Firstly, I was answering the question: - Is it worth spending time, efforts and money in chronic offenders?
So yes you were absolutely talking about money here and it is still more expensive to execute someone than to jail them for life. And I am not going to argue with you about whether that’s true or not. It is. Look it up.
As for your hypothetical… I’m not really sure why you included it but I'll address it.
I’m going to use dollars and simplify the numbers to: $8 instead of 800 million and we’ll say it costs $3 to execute someone and $1 to jail them for life.
So this person stole $8.
To execute the price would be: 8 + 3 = $11
To jail the price would be: 8 + 1 = $9

So it's still more expensive to execute. The amount stolen is just added on, the difference between the two amounts is still the exact same.

Is killing a person worse than putting them in jail for life?" So to put it in the format you used: Having nothing is inherently worse than continuing a life sentence

Ok, then, again, is killing someone worse than torturing someone? Is having no money also worse than having debts? Or having no government worse than having a tyrant?
Once again, how is being alive inherently better than being dead? Is there a way to measure the worth of Life, or a God that says "life shall be put above anything else", or anything else to support such claim? If life is better than death, does it also apply to any for of life, or is there a klind of ranking with people or living beings having a life worthing more than others?

Since you need some context, I'd ask it differently :
Is killing an innocent always worse than leaving him to prison/depriving him of his "freedom" and rights? Under every circumstances existing and imaginables? Same for a criminal. Why? Because it would stop the "experience"? Then it doesn't answer my question, how is experience so important?

Is a system where imprisonment is worse than death moral?

It sounds like going from an extreme to another with no room for diversity/colours. I asked " Is being chained with no hope to see the outside world, for decades, anymore better than death? " precisely with the hope than someone who would read it to consider that there are people for whom death might appear more appealing than a life in a closed building.

I would say it’s completely immoral. It’s inhumane.

I'm sorry, I only see a claim here and not an argument... To make it more clear, I saw that you support LGBTQ++. Some people argue that Homo, trans and so one are immorals and sometimes inhumane, and just stop their sentence at this point. I doubt you find people having such discource very convincing, so why would you be more when you hold the same lines to defend a mere belief?

Still to answer a bit:

Furthermore, how can you justify an immoral system having the ability to kill a person?

Relative simplicity of the process (you try to prove someone guilty, you get rid of this person). Social peace (no chance to commit a crime anymore, not a potential threat to citizens anymore).

How could anyone trust that a broken system is executing people who truly deserve it?

On my part, I don't think I've talked about people deserving to die, so I don't know from where this come from.

Prisons are not a heavenly place and I don’t necessarily think they should be, but there is a huge difference between a heavenly place and what you’re describing as a place that would make a person suicidal.

Aren't prisons( generally) making some people suicidal though..? Or maybe those people were just suicidal already?

So, “how can one justify to forbid one, but not the other?” Well, the existence of a death penalty how you are describing it essentially creates a moral paradox. If a system has the death penalty and it is moral to have because it is preferable to life imprisonment, than that system is immoral (humans innately want to survive, so there is something inherently wrong with a system that causes them to wish for death). In a system like that, removing the death penalty would force them to be more moral and I see no reason why a moral system would begin using the death penalty as they have no reason to. In this way, the death penalty is intrinsically linked to an immoral system.

With all the things that humans "innately" wish for, there are a lot of problems in every societies since the begining of civilizations and more. Walrus males annately wish to form a harem, there is something inherently wrong with a system in which there are Walrus males that will never breed. It might looks like a mockery, but here I want to say that something that seems innate isn't necessarily something that shall happen, there are things happening despite the "previous settings", and it's not necessarily the fault of a system full of defects or morally wrong, and I think asking for people who prefer death over a life in a jail would potentially be better than simply assuming that they prefer to live.
Still, that was only a very minor point because you could also argue, again, that "nothing" is better than a life of punishments, and still n,this would be a point among others like just getting social peace as mentionned previously.

My argument is not “USA is doing crap”, I’m using the USA as a statistical example because I am debating with someone from France. Like France the USA is a democractic and, for lack of a better word, ‘western’ country. I am not going to use Belarus or Russia as an example because they are both essentially authoritarian, and many of the other countries with the death penalty just don’t have a lot of statitics about them. So, I am using the USA as a, relatively, similar example to pull statistics from to aid my argument.

The US and France are two "democratic" countries, but that's almost the only common point... The societies, the cultures, the ideas are differents and so would be the way to apply death penalty, the same way that gun leggislation is very different in Switzerland and in the US.

Also, sidenote, whether or not a country has guns is unrelated to its safety, that is a debate about gun laws not guns

Ok, but that's what I said... and what I used to show that it is the same thing with Death Penalty (and which you partially admitted by putting away the "authoritarian" countries)... Even more, Switzerland is also a "Western" country, and so is Finland on the matter. So why would you put the US and a country like France in the same bag for death penalty while "western" countries already apply some ideas on a different way with very different results..?
I persist to say that if the US is doing crap with death penalty, it means nothing about what a country like France could do or not.

As for the rest of the argument here about rehabilitation, I wasn’t saying there was anything inherently wrong with the french prison system, or that it doesn’t rehabilitate people. I was just observing that the death penalty doesn’t aid this. For example, in France the percentage of prisoners that reoffend is around 14%

People in jails are for 40% recidivists, so there might be 15% of reoffenders overall (which should be checked more specifically), but many people who are in jail already went there.

in the US is 43%, if the death penalty had a actual positive impact on the amount of prisoners reintergrated we would see drastically different statistics here.

Why? Have you isolated every other factors that could influence the rate of reoffenders? If I'm just too laxist, or if, on the contrary, I just treat prisoners like good for nothings, couldn't I have a high rate of reoffenders when I free them independently of the existence of the Death penalty or not? Futhermore, if I have a death penalty but only use it for extreme cases, why would a thief worry at all since he is not concerned..?

Firstly, I was answering the question: - Is it worth spending time, efforts and money in chronic offenders?
So yes you were absolutely talking about money here and it is still more expensive to execute someone than to jail them for life. And I am not going to argue with you about whether that’s true or not. It is. Look it up.

My bad, I should have said soelly.

As for your hypothetical… I’m not really sure why you included it but I'll address it.
I’m going to use dollars and simplify the numbers to: $8 instead of 800 million and we’ll say it costs $3 to execute someone and $1 to jail them for life.
So this person stole $8.
To execute the price would be: 8 + 3 = $11
To jail the price would be: 8 + 1 = $9

Yes, but no. You stop both at the same point, like if jailing was a point where a criminal is dead, which is not the case. In other words, you can have a different model :
- To execute the price would be: 8 + 3 + y = $11 + y
To jail the price would be: 8 + 1 + x = $9 + x + y
y being a variable about how the existence/crime of the inmate could inspire some people (let's admit the inspiration it gives is the same in the case of a living and a dead inmate)
x being a variable including attempts for the prisoner to get a new verdict again and again, the influence (out of inspiration) it could have in a jail, but also from a jail et caetera.

Here, I'll admit that 1 and 3 are average values too, because one could argue that "1" should be a variable since the inmate will eventually live longer or shorter, and get sick or not. Same for the "3" depending on how long the death penalty is delayed.

Futhermore, this concern the case, in the USA, in which you're not so sure that the inate is the real criminal (then later to choose which sentence to apply), because most of the costs of a death penalty, from what I remember, aren't due to death penalty itself but to avoid mistakes as much as possible (or for the inmate to just save his ass). In the case of direct evidence of someone being a criminal, or just of chronic offender, I doubt the costs would be so high.