Capital Punishment Discussion

[NuclearID]

The Shas party said it voted in favor of the death penalty for terrorists law on the first reading, in accordance with the directive of the Council of Torah Sages, in light of the defense establishment's position after the Simchat Torah massacre. Ahead of the second and third readings, the Council instructed Shas representatives to make changes to the wording of the law in committee. After the changes were achieved and presented to the Council, the rabbis instructed Shas representatives to vote in favor of the law on the final reading.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2038557963497922791

Good job Israel. I very much approve.

We should (US) have a blanket death penalty for all terrorist or any/all terrorist related activities by any and all individually found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Hang them all, I don't want my tax dollars feeding terrorists for the rest of their lives. That's to easy/good for them anyways to get 3 free meals and a free roof over their heads.

To bad most would find it to draconian to let the victims of families of terror attacks to beat said terrorists to death to get their revenge. Sorta like the ending for President Snow in Hunger Games. tie them to the poll and let the victims have their way/extract their own justice.

 

[NuclearID]

Genuinely mean it & genuinely want this. Not being facetious here. We should take Israel's lead on this case and perhaps take it even further as I said.

 

[StormyCat]

I see the point, and justice DOES need to be done, but the death penalty would make the terrorists into martyrs...especially in this current conflict. This is not something we want to do.

 

[NuclearID]

I see the point, and justice DOES need to be done, but the death penalty would make the terrorists into martyrs...especially in this current conflict. This is not something we want to do.

They end up being martyrs weather they live in prison or live in a box underground. So. I don't see the point.

Not really about deterrence for me. It's about saving money and having 3 free meals a day and roof over their head is to good for them. I'm more comfortable letting them live rent free 6 feet down in a wooden box forever where they can never do harm again or cost us any money.

Also because I'm sure someone is gonna bring it up. TYPICALLY terrorist are caught in the act or caught with the materials. So wrong conviction in America regarding terrorism seems rather a non problem.

 

[teekay99]

My problems with automatic death penalty for convicted terrorists are as follows:

1. Many terrorists are suicidal. They don't mind dying as part of their effort. I'd rather punish a terrorist by denying them their choice to die and imposing some other punishment that offends their terroristic sensibilities or morality. For example, maybe an Islamic terrorist convicted of terrorizing Christians should be sentenced to 100 years of cleaning out port-o-potties that the terrorist is told was used by Christians...
2. Requiring automatic death sentence for terrorism convictions intrudes upon the independence of the judicial branch. This is a common academic Constitutional criticism of mandatory minimums and other legislated punishments.
3. I'm not so much worried about wrong convictions. I am more worried about zealous prosecutors. If mandatory death penalty for terrorism convictions exists, it won't be long before over zealous prosecutors try to use terrorism charges to seek a strong penalty for edge cases that may not fall cleary under the terror definition. Not that there is a clearly defined legal standard for terrorism.
4. Death penalty cases have automatic appeals attached to them. They are slower to adjudicate. Don't expect such cases to move quickly nor expect the penalty to be instituted quickly.

 

[DEFCON Warning System]

Requiring automatic death sentence for terrorism convictions intrudes upon the independence of the judicial branch.

Legislature is well within its authority to establish penalties.

 

[william]

It is possible this idiot might be stood up in front of a FIRING SQUAD.

DOJ says it will use firing squads, electrocution again for federal executions

DOJ reinstates firing squads, pentobarbital for federal executions

The Justice Department announced Friday it would readopt the death penalty protocols for lethal injection and firing squads.

www.cbsnews.com

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/24/us/politics/trump-firing-squad-executions-death-penalty.html

Justice Department to allow firing squads for executions in move to ramp up capital punishment

The Justice Department will adopt firing squad as a permitted method of execution as the Trump administration moves to ramp up and expedite capital punishment cases.

apnews.com

 

[RiffRaff]

It is possible this idiot might be stood up in front of a FIRING SQUAD.

Not to derail the thread, but as an aside, I've always been fascinated with how the definition of "cruel and unusual" changes over time. If you look at the analysis of suicide methods, a shotgun blast through the roof of the mouth is considered to be the most instantaneous and painless method of killing ones self, because the brain is destroyed before it has a chance to send out pain signals. A lot of the official execution methods are not nearly as quick or efficient. Hanging sometimes does not break the neck and the person strangles to death. Electrocution doesn't always result in death after the first jolt. Lethal injections and firing squads can both be botched. Nitrogen asphyxiation is insanely slow and painful. The gas chamber is similarly slow and painful.

Partially a curiosity of how humans think and partially a judgement on the US justice system.

(Full transparency: I do support the death penalty as a concept, but not how it's currently used in the US.)

 

[Friendly Engineer]

Considering recent events, I thought it might be a good time for a discussion about capital punishment (i.e. the state executing criminals).

 

[Friendly Engineer]

Not to derail the thread, but as an aside, I've always been fascinated with how the definition of "cruel and unusual" changes over time. If you look at the analysis of suicide methods, a shotgun blast through the roof of the mouth is considered to be the most instantaneous and painless method of killing ones self, because the brain is destroyed before it has a chance to send out pain signals. A lot of the official execution methods are not nearly as quick or efficient. Hanging sometimes does not break the neck and the person strangles to death. Electrocution doesn't always result in death after the first jolt. Lethal injections and firing squads can both be botched. Nitrogen asphyxiation is insanely slow and painful. The gas chamber is similarly slow and painful.

Partially a curiosity of how humans think and partially a judgement on the US justice system.

(Full transparency: I do support the death penalty as a concept, but not how it's currently used in the US.)

I don't think there's any situation that supports capital punishment.
What right does the state have to end the life of its citizens? How does it make the state any better than a criminal?

 

[Friendly Engineer]

Then you have the miscarriages of justice & the mentally ill (of which Texas has one on death row at the moment).
You can't un-execute an innocent person.

 

[Friendly Engineer]

What surprises me even more is America, what with it being a very Christian country, supports capital punishment.

 

[RiffRaff]

What surprises me even more is America, what with it being a very Christian country, supports capital punishment.

Well, first, I'm not a Christian, and America as a whole has corrupted Christianity so it supports pretty much anything they want it to.

Second, I did say that I do not support the death penalty as currently practiced by the US. Every year innocent people are released from prison due to new forensic technology exonerating them. Statistically, this will also apply to people that have been executed.

Third, there are just some crimes that are so heinous in nature that eliminating the person who committed them is the only reasonable path.

Now, I will concede that too much attention is focused on punishment as opposed to prevention and rehabilitation, which is yet another reason I don't support the death penalty in the US. I only support it as a philosophy under specific circumstances.

 

[NuclearID]

What surprises me even more is America, what with it being a very Christian country, supports capital punishment.

Just merged my thread about death penalty for terrorists. I figured there shouldn't be two threads discussing the death penalty.

In case you're wondering where the few posts above came from.

 

[Friendly Engineer]

Well, first, I'm not a Christian, and America as a whole has corrupted Christianity so it supports pretty much anything they want it to.

Second, I did say that I do not support the death penalty as currently practiced by the US. Every year innocent people are released from prison due to new forensic technology exonerating them. Statistically, this will also apply to people that have been executed.

Third, there are just some crimes that are so heinous in nature that eliminating the person who committed them is the only reasonable path.

Now, I will concede that too much attention is focused on punishment as opposed to prevention and rehabilitation, which is yet another reason I don't support the death penalty in the US. I only support it as a philosophy under specific circumstances.

Even if only the most heinous criminals could be executed painlessly, and only those whom are certainly guilty, I'd still be against it.
Surely it's more of a punishment to lock up a criminal for the rest of their natural lives than ending them prematurely?

I will never understand the logic of the state executing someone for any crime where lives are not immediately at risk (i.e. Shooting a terrorist to stop him blowing up a bomb is fine in my books). When someone's locked in a prison cell 23 hours a day they can't go and murder members of the public, so how is the state any better than the criminal by killing them?

 

[william]

Even if only the most heinous criminals could be executed painlessly, and only those whom are certainly guilty, I'd still be against it.
Surely it's more of a punishment to lock up a criminal for the rest of their natural lives than ending them prematurely?

I will never understand the logic of the state executing someone for any crime where lives are not immediately at risk (i.e. Shooting a terrorist to stop him blowing up a bomb is fine in my books). When someone's locked in a prison cell 23 hours a day they can't go and murder members of the public, so how is the state any better than the criminal by killing them?

Well, it costs taxpayers $37,000-$65,000 to incarcerate an individual depending on which state they are incarcerated in. Let's go with a middle number of $50,000 a year times 40 years is 2 million for just one inmate. Now if the induvial is violent and can't be in general population that number can go up to $90,000 - $100,000 per inmate per year due to more security, specialized housing, and lengthy, complex legal appeals.

I personally believe that money could be better spent on inmates that could be rehabilitated, or community outreach programs to keep youth out of prison to begin with, rather than spend it on violent inmates who can't be rehabilitated. I do believe some people are just evil.

Now the argument for life in prison rather than death is the cost of keeping someone on death row is higher than general population. Well, if a person committed a crime to even be considered for the death penalty chances are they would have to be segregated from the general population which increases the cost of incarcerating them, similar to being on death row anyway.