Cutting it off does the same thing

then death for reafenders

yes, but how many? if the max is like 50 years, then just go 50 years than death.

The death penalty carries a lot of fucking safe checks as it should, and the cost of all that ends up being more expensive than life

we have people who have been on death row who are innocent, how is this any different?

@Schedrevka ive heard that being said yeah

and if you kept someone in prison for half their life, maybe it would have been better off killing them, then giving surviving family money if he is found innocent.

@Grenade123 i 100% agree with you there

And as good a our justice system is in comparison to most of human history there still are mistakes that are made, and making a mistake with the death penalty is far too big a risk to take for too little to gain.

I don't agree with the death penalty just because of the possibility of innocence

We HAVE found people to be innocent after their executions.

what good is releasing a man in his 80s just to live in poverty until death AND be a drain on society.

and his family

And what is to be gained from an execution? Some people feel slightly better that a dude is dead?

id rather get executed and my family get paid than rotting in a prison

@Schedrevka doesn't cost tax payer money, and you are not torturing a person anymore

well you could ebay off pulling the switch and put it on pay per view to pay off some of the deficit

If you're following due process of course it costs tax payer money. More than life in prison.

if they are guilty, you literally keep them confided to a box the rest of their life, no freedom, no future. But you won't let them die and move on.

make australia a prison again lol

and now you have to pay for their room and board.

to an extent, that is better than life in prison.

I wouldn't be entirely opposed to allowing those with a life sentence to choose euthanasian.

@Schedrevka I thought the same at first

#makeMarsAPenalColony

hehe penal

but then you have the cases where they are mentally "incentivised" to choose it

The argument I've seen against euthanasia that makes the most sense to me is that people with severe mental issues can't properly consent, and if you are suicidal you have severe mental issues.

you will have severe mental issues if they want you to

roll on Heinleinian government

either you torture a man who deserves it for years, in which case you are still torturing a man, or you torture an innocent man, in which case you have already destroyed his future if too much time has past so now you are releasing him to even more torture via poverty.

and the social consequenses of being imprisioned even if found innocent are perminent

once you have jailed an innocent man for 50 years, you have already done too much damage. So make that the min time before death is applied.

or something like that.

So what, because there's no perfect option we shouldn't try at all?

we should always try

he's just saying that we should kill everyone that is sentenced for more than 2 decades. At least that's my interpretation of what @Grenade123 is saying

And I don't think it's entirely fair to classify incarceration as torture.

What if the guy doesn't want to die?

What if he's found innocent 10 years in?

no, AFTER they have served 50 years