The Death Penalty feat. PragerU

Hello everyone, today we are going to talk about the

death

penalty

or capital punishment and we all know what is right when the state kills someone as punishment for a criminal act and first of all I want to talk about this for a few reasons. While most countries in the world have abolished the

death

penalty

completely or only use it in very specific circumstances, a large part of the world's population still lives in countries that maintain the death penalty, including in countries that have abolished it, This may remain popular and its reintroduction is often defended by a 20 to 17 YouGov poll which found that more than half of Brexit voters in the UK, for example, think the death penalty should be reinstated.

Another reason I want to talk about the death penalty today is because we have noticed that often when discussing the pros and cons of the death penalty people tend to have the wrong argument and, as an example of this, we are going to take a look at a typical argument for the death penalty, such as the one offered by Dennis. Prager from Prager you in your video is the death penalty always moral which I will link below in the video description in this video Dennis Prager argues that criminals who do horrible enough things should be executed and uses the Cheshire Connecticut case of 2007. home invasion murders during which two criminals broke into a family's home and murdered three people in a particularly brutal manner.

Dennis Prager "his argument in favor of executing these men is an emotional argument and appeals directly to the feelings of his audience by talking about things like a sense of justice, the pain inflicted on the loved ones of those murdered and asking if the rapists, Murderers and evil men like them deserve to keep their lives, and this kind of appeal to emotion is the main impetus for many arguments for the death penalty today. If someone can lose the right to life by one action. or a series of sufficiently horrible actions is a moral question, it is a philosophical question and it is not a question that I am going to answer today if you believe that people who commit terrible crimes as Dennis Prager describes deserve to in turn use their lives.

To argue with you here, in fact, we can proceed as if that's definitely true if you want, because regardless of how you feel about that question, it really has nothing to do with it. What does it have to do with what we will talk about today, which is whether the death penalty as a practical process should really be applied, whether it is possible for someone to lose the right to life, is a different question than whether society should have the death penalty. me too. I'm going to argue that no matter how you feel about the first question, the answer to the last question is no and if you don't agree with that now, all I ask is that you stay for the rest of the video and listen to me. now.

Before we begin, it's worth noting that many anti-death penalty arguments also appeal to emotion, and I'm going to try to avoid those arguments in the future by reading or watching anti-death penalty arguments that you'll hear about often, e.g. . how the difficulty of obtaining chemicals for lethal injections means that inferior chemicals can be used, which can lead to prolonged, painful or botched executions, etc., regardless of how each individual feels about it, I don't think it's so big. It's a very compelling argument for someone who is currently in favor of the death penalty, since if you believe that a criminal did something so bad that he should be killed, you probably won't care too much if he gets hurt on the way out, just as In As much as possible, today I will try to avoid emotional arguments and stick to the facts.

To start, let's stay with Dennis Prager's video for a while. He opens the video of him stating that he just doesn't understand the people who oppose it. the death penalty, the Gulf is unsalvageable, he says between those of us who believe that some murderers should be executed and those who believe that no murderer should ever be executed later, at the end of the video, he returns to this opening paragraph. saying, but if you really believe that these people deserve to keep their lives well, like I said at the beginning, I don't understand you now, these two quotes perfectly illustrate the disconnect I talked about a minute ago in the opening.

Dennis Prager is talking about the process of executing people, but in the end he talks about the philosophical question of whether those people deserve to keep their lives, two different questions that he treats as if they were the same in doing this, which Dennis Prager is missing. is the possibility that someone might believe that criminals who do the kinds of evil things he describes deserve to lose their lives, but that the death penalty is separate; That's still a bad idea, well, the first thing is that there are crimes for which the appropriate penalty is obviously death.

I like and have read a lot about serial killers, for example, the ID law, I read a lot of brutal material, you know, I was very interested in criminology and antisocial behavior, as well as political pathology, it's like there are guys like , I think, John Wayne Gacy, who Yeah, you don't want to know about him. I think he begged the judge to give him the death penalty. He himself knew that there was no turning back from where he went. Hmm, but that's not the problem for me. The problem is if you give him the power to declare so much power and I would practically say no.

I think this is a very insensitive way to look. I think in the United States it costs 20 million dollars to kill someone. It's like why, well, because the state shouldn't just be able to do it. they do that and easily and they make a lot of mistakes so maybe you never want the state to have that much power and I think that's a reasonable argument, not that it's a reasonable width, that's where I'm at. I just don't want to give the state those powers that Jordan Peterson was, they are expressing to Dave Rubin his opinion that people may deserve to be killed, but he just doesn't trust the state to wield that much power and this is a common argument against death penalty brought by people against big government.

I chose a Jordan Peterson clip in there because he's been the narrator for multiple Prager u videos, so if Dennis Prager would like to understand an argument against the death penalty, I guess. you could just ask Jordan Peterson Peterson's argument also reveals a contradiction in Prague's position and it has to do with the size and role of government. We all know how Prager u feels about the government, and by the way, when does the government do anything good? work to fix anything biggest government the smallest citizen why government is so bad at healthcare government is killing small businesses by killing them with excessive taxes complicated overregulation and compliance the worst environmental offenders have been big repressive socialist governments people in the government will sell government influence for personal and political gain.

It is trapped in bureaucracy and plagued by waste. The more the government tightens, the economy decreases. So what is the solution? Less government, not more, yes the government is big, bloated, slow, corrupt, caught up in bureaucracy and regulations not fit to run the DMV let alone a healthcare system and this is the government Dennis Prager is in trust to competently decide who deserves to live and die because the same state bureaucracy that his other videos described as inefficient and corrupt is suddenly perfectly competent when it comes to sentencing the death penalty, having the power to end the lives of Its citizens is not the best example of a big government, it is not wonderful, it is too off topic here, but this is an example of how most of the time, when people complain about the size of the government their arguments usually have very little to do with the actual size of government in a less dumb world, if someone claimed to be against big government we might assume they supported things like decreasing military spending, ending demilitarization of the police, reducing the number of people in prison and it is relevant for us to be against the death penalty, if you don't trust the government and want it to be smaller, you probably shouldn't want it to have a huge army, armed police force and life power either. and death upon its citizens too often, although the people who complain about big government love all that stuff and what they really mean when they say big government is just government health care and welfare programs, anyway to get back on track Dennis Prager has decided to break with Prager you are tradition and now fully trusts that the government will judge and implement the death penalty fairly and recognize that it saves innocent people who could be unjustly executed is infinitely small thanks to DNA testing and other advanced forensic tools that make executing an innocent person virtually impossible.

The possibility of executing an innocent person is, of course, one of the most common and strongest arguments against the death penalty because, obviously, if it comes to light that someone was unjustly imprisoned, they can be let out of prison, But if it comes to light that someone was unjustly imprisoned, they can be released from prison. wrongfully executed, that's it, they're dead, Dennis Prager avoids this argument by saying that our modern forensic tools make it virtually impossible to execute an innocent person, but he's missing something and now he's making a pretty big assumption before we get into exactly what is being lost.

Here let's first imagine a hermetic murder case, let's say a husband and wife are walking down the street when an assailant armed with a gun approaches them and in the process of robbing the couple, he shoots and kills the wife, it's called to the police and based on the description of the criminal given to the police by the husband, they pick up a suspect near the crime scene when they bring the suspect to the husband, he says yes, that's him, that's the person who told him shot my wife, the police then arrest the suspect and when he is later questioned, he admits to the crime and signs a written confession saying yes, I did it.

I'm the person who shot that woman, so the case is closed. We have a positive identification of the murderer from a witness who was a foot. away when the crime was committed and a written confession signed by the killer saying that they did it. Few cases are clearer than that, which is why this case was a real case. The crime occurred in May 2002. Tourists from Georgia, that is the state. not the country were staying at a Ramada Inn in Jacksonville, Florida, outside their hotel, they were approached by a criminal who, in the process of assault, shot and killed Mary Ann Stevens, her husband James Stevens identified Brenton Butler, who He was detained nearby by police. since the killer and Butler confessed to the murder during interrogation, however, as I imagine many of you already suspect that there is more to this case than meets the eye, firstly, the victim's husband made a mistake in identifying the criminal , he simply had the wrong person. and this is something that happens, witnesses make mistakes, especially witnesses who were involved in a very traumatic experience, but why would one wonder if the wrong guy confessed to the crime correctly during the trial?

Brenton Butler alleged that the police physically abused him into confessing which allegedly again my attorneys reminding me to say physically intimidated him and hit him several times until he confessed to the crime. All of this is the subject of a very interesting documentary called Murder on a Sunday Morning that I highly recommend if you want to know more about In this case, the film follows Butler's defense team before public defenders named Patrick McGuinness and Ann Fennell as they put together the case about Butler's innocence and rarely tear down the police in the courtroom and expose their horribly incompetent investigation, which is very satisfying to see.

The police, for example, did not even search Brenton Butler's home for the items he allegedly stole or interview members of his family regarding his whereabouts at the time of the crime. you know he didn't have a gun that he knew he didn't have. a purse you knew you didn't have money you know you didn't have a bucket hat right, okay, did you ask Brent? Can I come search your house? Not your room, sir, didn't you get a search warrant for your house, no sir, I didn't, you wanted to find a gun, a bag, bloody clothes and everything else, yes, sir, that would have been good, so, did you? why not go look for it?

Well, we just didn't give it a tour and that's not the case. It's hard to imagine what allegedly happened here: a tourist was shot to death outside a hotel. That's not a great headline to attract more tourists to your city, so there's a lot of pressure on the police to solve that particular crime very quickly and here you have it. a witness who has already identified someone in his custody who says that he committed the crime and that someone is a teenager who he just needs to sign apaper to close this case quickly, so you make him sign the paper supposedly and you don't.

Don't go around investigating other things that you know will weaken the case against him, so you don't search his house for stolen items that you know aren't there, not potential alibi interviews that could get you off the hook. You just put everything into the witness identification and confession and hope that's enough to get the case over the line, so you might ask why I'm talking about this particular case in a video about the death penalty. Butler was too young to receive the death penalty anyway even if he was found guilty, so that wouldn't apply here and even if he was found guilty, the real killer was later caught when someone tipped off the police who. was, so Butler probably would have been released anyway, even if he was wrongly convicted, but my point here is to show a case in which the criminal justice system or part of it, in this case the police force could have a motivation to deliberately allowing an innocent person to be convicted of a crime he or she did not commit.

This is what Dennis Prager overlooks when he talks about investigative techniques and forensic tools because he does. In many cases we have very powerful forensic tools, but you also have to be able to trust people with those tools not to lie and also to use them. I guess what Prager leaves out is the human element that is sometimes used by the police, for example. planting evidence there was a case recently in New York where an officer was caught on camera apparently planting drugs in a car and this is similar to a case last year when a Florida police officer was arrested after an investigation showed there was repeatedly planted meth on people during traffic stops, police sometimes take bribes from criminals, lie in court, cover up other officers' crimes, beat confessions out of innocent people, etc., even if all police are bastards, it's too absolutist for you. admit that sometimes some police officers are bastards and some judges are bastards and some lawyers many lawyers our bastards or incompetent or lazy or corrupt or just plain apathetic the accuracy of a particular investigative technique or forensic method is only part of the calculation we have to make When determining the likelihood that someone is innocent we also have to trust that the justice system is not lying or cheating or simply making a mistake.

DNA analysis of a piece of evidence can be said to be almost perfectly accurate, but it cannot say whether that piece of evidence was placed at a crime scene. I'm not saying it's necessarily going to be a very common occurrence, don't get me wrong, but it is a possibility that we have an imperfect justice system run by imperfect people, no one. The type of evidence will always be impeccable, even video evidence Dennis Prager in his video says that opponents of capital punishment opposed the death penalty even when there is absolute proof of the murderer's guilt, if there was a video of a Man Burning Family Alive Opponents of capital punishment would still oppose taking that man's life, now the implication is that a video would be absolute proof of guilt, but is that really the case?

This is a claim that will become less and less true over time and that is simply because technological advances mean that video is becoming easier to fake. It is becoming increasingly difficult to detect videos that are authentic and videos created on a computer. Many of you will remember this video from a few years ago of a fake Barack Obama that was created on a computer using an AI video tool now, the more observant people in the audience might still be able to tell that this is fake, you can see That something seems a little strange, yet it's already eerily similar to the real thing, isn't it?

And in no time it will. In fact, it will be very difficult to differentiate between authentic videos and fake videos like this and if my directions led you to believe that this is a fake video of Barack Obama, then we are already there because it is not fake. Barack Obama videos this is a real video of Barack Obama. I just put up a real video where the headline describes the fake one. Anyway, I'm a know-it-all, while deepfake videos aren't a big problem for the legal system right now as technology advances. Being more advanced and easier to use could be a problem in the future and even with a video that is not fake we can still imagine perfectly possible scenarios where executing a man based on video evidence that he committed a crime would be a bad idea.

What if the man had off-screen accomplices in his crime? If you kill him, you have less chance of finding them. What if the person who committed the crime was someone who was coerced or forced to commit it by another person? someone threatened to murder his family unless he did something horrible in his name again, since with a bribe to judge you are planting evidence. I'm not saying these things will happen every day, just that it's a possibility and it doesn't matter how. It is unlikely that if you execute enough people, you will eventually kill an innocent person, so the argument for the death penalty has to be that killing the occasional innocent person is an acceptable risk because that risk is outweighed by the positive aspects that come from having the death penalty.

What are the positive aspects of having the death penalty? One you will often see proposed is cost. Why should the taxpayer pay to feed and clothe a horrible murderer who could live for another? No matter how many decades they are. It would be better and cheaper to just kill them directly. In practice, this is not true in the United States, for example, it is much more expensive to execute people than to imprison them for life. Executing someone is a very complicated and time-consuming legal process. Some inmates spend more than 20 years on death row before being executed.

It is very slow because there are several stages of review and appeal before the death penalty can actually be carried out. Now the obvious counterargument to this is to say: well, what would happen if we sped up the process a little if we executed people right afterward? were found guilty that there would be a massive expense, an execution would be the cheapest option and the counterargument to this counterargument is that the slow appeal and review process exists for a very good reason if you fought against my proposed scenarios a minute ago. As for how an innocent person could end up being executed, it sounds like a ridiculous million to one bet, so what you need is a real life example, so let's talk about the rather infamous case of Timothy Evans, something I imagine some of you will know.

Timothy Evans was a Welshman who lived in London in 1949 with his wife and son and in November 1949 he went to the police and informed them that his wife Beryl Evans had died and the story he told the police was that his wife I was pregnant. But since the couple thought they could not support another child, they accepted the proposal of their downstairs neighbor, John Christie, who had offered to perform an abortion. Christie apparently botched the abortion and accidentally killed Beryl Evans. Christie then convinced Timothy Evans to leave and stay with relatives in Wales while she disposed of Beryl Evans' body and arranged for a couple to care for her daughter, so Timothy Evans went to Wales just a few weeks later.

He decided to go to the police and tell them what had happened only when he first told them. From the story to the police he left Christie out of it by saying that he himself had been the one who disposed of his wife's body and who arranged for the care of his daughter. In response to this story the police searched the place where Evans said he had disposed of of the body being in a sewer drain only to discover that there was no body there and that lifting the drain cover would have been physically impossible for one man, so Evans, when asked, changed his story and this time included to Christie stating that she had previously been trying to protect Christie by not mentioning him, so Evans told the police that Christie was the one who hid the body and arranged for her daughter to be taken care of.

In response to this new account, police searched the building where both Evans and Christie lived and discovered in the backyard laundry room the bodies of not only Beryl Evans but also her daughter with Timothy Evans, both of whom had been strangled to death when They informed him that his wife and daughter had been strangled. Timothy Evans confessed to the crime o Did your interrogation of him by the police produce a confession, although he later stated in court that this confession was made because he feared being subjected to violence by the police? So from the police perspective a man came in and said his wife was dead and then told them multiple conflicting accounts of how it happened, most of the time he will be the killer, however Timothy Evans was not the killer, his wife and daughter were murdered by John Christie, there was no botched abortion nor were there any arrangements for the daughter to be murdered. sent somewhere else to be treated after John Christie murdered them both because he was a serial killer, the things he told Timothy Evans about what had happened are lies, however, John Christie was also a former police officer. war reserve police, this, along with police who clearly believed Timothy Evans Obviously, the killer led them to carry out an incredibly vague investigation.

They know it's Timothy Evans so there's no need to investigate the crime scene that well and we can trust John Christie's word as he used to be a cop like us and If Timothy Evans doesn't confess to the crime we can just persuade him to confess to the crime, if you know what I mean, wink, this led the police to overlook that John Christie had the bodies of his previous victims buried in shallow graves in his back garden. so shallow that a dog was able to dig up one of the skulls and later a PHY bone was apparently found propping up the fence around it.

He also had multiple criminal convictions for robbery and assault, including attacking a woman with a cricket bat, which was apparently overlooked by the police due to the police's rubbish investigation and Timothy Evans' temporary confession to the crime, however, It so happened that Evans was tried for murder on January 11, 1950 and was found guilty. He was executed on March 9, less than three months later. the state executed an innocent man and this sounds like a ridiculous million bucks to want what's right, what if he wasn't the husband and the downstairs neighbor is actually a scheming serial killer? It sounds like paranoid fiction and is incredibly unlikely, but things like this happen and there are several things we need to keep in mind regarding this case.

First of all, it's a very good example of why it's an incredibly bad idea to execute people quickly. All those slow reviews and appeals exist to catch exactly these types of errors. Christie was caught three times. years later, in 1953, for example, at which point if Timothy Evans hadn't already been executed, they could have let him out of prison, so yes, the justice system could kill people faster, but if you do, you will commit more mistakes, so you'll have to be okay with killing more innocent people to make the process cheaper I guess, so you're basically killing innocent people for money at that point, which sounds like the opposite of something the justice system should do next, killing an innocent person is only half the crime here because the justice system got the wrong person, the real killer was still out there and John Christie killed four more people before he was caught.

Timothy Evans could have been a witness who helped bring Christie to justice years before him. Instead, he was wrongfully executed and Christie killed again, so here's my answer to the cost of the death penalty: You can do it fast, cheap, and bad, or you can do it slow and expensive. The question is how many innocent people are you. willing to risk accidentally killing according to the death penalty information center in the United States, for example, more than 160 people sentenced to death were wrongfully convicted and were exonerated and they are only those who have been found, remember the real number The number of people wrongfully convicted is probably much higher than that and let's look at some of the reasons for those exonerations false or misleading forensic evidence official misconduct perjury or false accusation inadequate legal defense wrong witness I identification these supposedly very unlikely scenarios happen much more frequently than we think I would like to admit it anyway the next argument for the death penalty that I want to discuss is deterrence.

The death penalty is worth its various disadvantages. It is argued because it deters crime. Now the big problem with this argument is that there is no evidence. for this, forFor example, comparing between states within the US that have the death penalty to those that do not, there is no positive correlation between having the death penalty and a reduced crime rate and for countries that have abolished the penalty of death there is no evidence that doing so would have caused the crime rate to increase that much that's it for this argument, there is no evidence, however, leaving it at that would be a small mistake, there is a relatively good argument about the death penalty here regarding deterrence and compiled it from various sources but mainly from pro-death supporters. arguments about the death penalty contained in the book debating the death penalty, so let's make the relatively good argument about the death penalty and if I were to appear on camera during these videos, this is the point where I would burst through the door with a hat and a fake mustache and I would proceed to argue with myself in character, but since I'm not a great actor, we'll all have to use our imaginations, so the plot goes like this: the death penalty deters crime, which The answer is no, no, there is no evidence of this. that but we respond that the death penalty would be that crime if it had not been so weakened there is no evidence of deterrence under our current system sure, but under our current system only a very small number of crimes are eligible for the death penalty only a number very small of those cases actually result in a death sentence, many of them are later overturned and the legal process between arrest and execution takes years, of course that system doesn't destroy anyone because the chances of being executed are too casualties, it happens too slowly, it's too abstract to be a good deterrent if we want the death penalty to deter someone, it needs to be used more often, faster and for a wider variety of crimes, for example it will execute someone for killing one of the people in a robbery, but not a banker who defrauds thousands of people or a politician who starts a war that kills hundreds of thousands.

Now the obvious response to the increased use of the death penalty, as we talked about earlier, is that you are going to execute more innocent people and to that we say that the state accidentally kills innocent people all the time, if we build the new fire station, so, on a long enough time scale, someone will eventually get hit by one of your fire trucks and die if we build a new highway. between two cities there will inevitably be a fatal traffic accident in it innocent people killed by the death penalty are no different to which the answer is that those things provide useful social benefits we accept the disadvantages because they are outweighed by the positive aspects we say they yes, the death penalty, with all the crime, will definitely deter if you just relax a little and start using it appropriately, by which we mean a lot.

I like these arguments because at least you're honest about the fact that the death penalty kills innocent people and I find the part about bankers particularly persuasive, unfortunately it falls apart on examination, so here's why I don't agree with it. it. The most substantial response to the accidental social arguments of the deaf is that, regarding the potential benefits of death. death penalty the burden of proof falls on the people who defend it it is easy to show that having a fire department, for example, is a good idea with obvious social benefits if we want the death penalty to be seen in the same way, It is up to us to prove it with something as definitive as the State killing a person, we cannot simply say that it could have benefits without the evidence to support it and, in the absence of evidence, we can also take the course of action that is later reversible instead of the one that is permanent, we can let innocent people out of prison, but we cannot resurrect the dead.

Furthermore, another big problem with the deterrence argument is that it assumes a clear-headed killer, the kind of calculating criminals seen killing for small gains and shows like Columbo. and so on in reality, although not many would-be murderers are sitting in front of a spreadsheet calculating the odds of being caught and the punishment they are likely to face versus the benefits of committing a murder, hitmen may be, but they are not. In reality, the most common thing is that most murders are unplanned and carried out impulsively without thinking about the future, and many of the worst criminals say that they are mass murderers, serial killers and the like, or hope that they are.

They are killed by the police or themselves, or believe they will. They will never be caught or they don't care about being caught, no legal punishment will deter such people if we assume that this is a lucid and calculating criminal, even if he is the type of criminal who would think well. I don't mind serving a life sentence, but really If we don't want the death penalty, we run into a contradiction when we propose extending the death penalty to crimes other than murder, and it's a pretty dangerous contradiction. The problem is that if we make the penalty for robbery say the same as for murder, then calculating criminals who have just robbed someone will think right since the punishment is the same either way.

I can also murder them now because I have less chance of being caught if the witness can't identify me because I'm dead, amplifying the death. The punishment for other crimes will turn many of those crimes into murder, assuming there are calculating criminals anyway - almost no one thinks that way, of course, but the fact that almost no one thinks that way is why the deterrence argument It doesn't really work, most murderers don't. think logically about the future because most murderers don't think logically, if they did they probably wouldn't be murdering someone. There is also a problem with the idea of ​​extending the death penalty to financial and corporate crimes, as nice as it may seem and the problem is wealth inequality.

Money can buy better legal representation. You can say that this or that crime should have the death penalty, but it will still be the poor who will receive the majority of the death penalty. Resolving that problem would mean eliminating the economy. inequality, which, funny enough, would definitely do a lot more to reduce crime rates than any possible punishment. More egalitarian societies have a lower crime rate after all, anyway, back to Dennis Prager here, he doesn't make the cost argument in the video of him. he doesn't make arguments of deterrence either and that's a smart move on his part.

Both arguments can easily be countered with evidence after all, the death penalty is very expensive and there is no evidence that it deters crime. These are things that can be proven with statistics. Dennis Prager wisely bases his entire argument for the death penalty on an argument that is difficult to refute with statistics: how do you feel when someone does something terrible? Don't you think I should face something equally terrible? Consequences and what about the pain inflicted on the loved ones of those killed? For most people, their suffering is greatly increased by knowing that the person who murdered their family member or friend and who in many cases inflicted unimaginable terror is alive and, of course, being cared for.

The death of the murderer does not bring back his loved one, but it does provide some sense of justice, so this is the other argument for the death penalty, the final argument, the death penalty provides the loved ones of the victims a sense of justice or closure or healing or something, but is this really true? Now you can't speak on behalf of each victim's family and friends, of course different people will react differently. Dennis Prager uses the example of a man who wants the death penalty for the man who killed his family. members, for example, on the other hand, it is trivial to find examples of families of murder victims who oppose the death penalty, for example, the organization Families of Murder Victims for Human Rights, which you well know, you get it from the title, I imagine their relatives murder victims who oppose the death penalty and that organization's website says they all suffered a tragic loss, murder victims, families of human rights members, have come in different ways and at different times to understand that the The death penalty does not help us heal and is not the way to seek justice for victims, the death penalty as a sentence does not provide closure, it is not carried out for a long time, to begin with, someone sentenced today might not be killed until 2040, that's decades in which they were alive and cared for, as Dennis Prager said, and instead of providing a sense of finality it is easier to imagine a death penalty sentence that gives a sense of uncertainty because it is not certain that the murderer will be executed, many sentences are then changed to life imprisonment after all and remember the long review and appeal process where the case is reexamined and often retried, how do you imagine they will feel the loved ones of murder victims about it, especially if they witnessed the crime, which means they will have to be directly involved in the entire process so that all the details are presented? over and over and so on with a life sentence the victims' families immediately know where they are but with the death penalty they don't really know, they are four years in the future wondering what is really going to happen Instead of providing a sense of closure, the death penalty actually delays that closure and I would like to briefly mention one study just to support this, someone evaluating the impact of the maximum criminal penalty on homicide survivors, a comparison with the state and let's briefly read the summary.

From that study, numerous studies have examined the psychological ramifications that result from the murder of a loved one, except in the case of the death penalty; However, little attention has been paid to the impact of the murder sentence on the well-being of homicide survivors, given the strong public opinion that the death penalty provides satisfaction and closure to survivors. It is surprising that no systematic research has been done directly with survivors on whether obtaining the maximum punishment affects their healing. This study used face-to-face interviews with a randomly selected sample of survivors from four time periods to examine. that entirety of the final criminal sanctioning process and its longitudinal impact on their lives, furthermore, evaluated the differential effect of two types of ups by comparing the experiences of survivors in Texas, a state with the death penalty, and Minnesota, a state with chain life without the possibility of parole.

Comparing states highlights the differences. primarily during the post-conviction phase, specifically with respect to the appeals process and with respect to survivor well-being in Minnesota, survivors of adjudicated cases showed higher levels of physical, psychological, and behavioral health. The findings of this study have implications for trial strategy and policy development, so in At least in the case of this study, it appears that the death penalty does not provide the sense of closure that people might expect and I will publish a link to this below in case anyone wants to read it in more detail. Dennis Prager ends the video of him saying that he doesn't understand the other side of the death penalty arguments, something that should have been obvious, but I would like to end today by saying that he understands the argument for the death penalty.

I understand the desire for some sense of ultimate justice regarding the kind of horrible murder we've been talking about. I live in England where there is no death penalty, but I imagine that if someone murdered my family or friends, I would want that at the time. person to suffer every possible punishment, including the death penalty, but that is just what I would personally want at this moment, nothing would have changed from anything else we have been talking about today, instituting the death penalty because I wanted in The case would set the precedent for the state to execute people for all the reasons I disagree with and would reopen the door to the possibility of innocent people being unjustly executed and that is ultimately a crime worse than the fact that I, as an individual, do not receive what I want thank you very much for watching people, what do you think about the death penalty?

Be sure to scroll down to the comments box and write all your thoughts in a YouTube comment that I will definitely be sure to read, thanks as always to my sponsors. on patreon some of which should happen right now thanks to them not only for their financial support but also for all their very helpful comments and if you want to help me make more videos like this please consider checking out the Patreon link I'll leave it bottom right, that's all from me today, friends, see you next timetime.