Special thanks to our Patreon, Evaly von Karma, for granting us with the assets to include the new sprites for Katherine Hall (Mafalda) and the updated HD poses for Shi-Long Lang (C.O). We also thank Pêle-mêle for creating the custom sprite for Phoenix Wright used on this video, as well as animating the custom Kay Faraday sprite used, created by RainyMeadows. Special thanks to RainyMeadows as well. Man, that was almost an Oscar speech right there...

Name a more dynamic duo than a French Citizen, and Public Execution

The whiplash that the end gave me was astronomical, I didn’t expect the closing point to be “ok then loser, come give me a smooch”

I like how this just straight up ended. There's no resolution. We just... Stop. With Bowl's amazing proposition for a kiss. Amazing. Best debate ever written.

"You can't be that shallow!" "Don't underestimate Bowl!" Bowl is that guy who takes "how stupid can you get" as a challenge. And then rubs it in your face once he sets a new record.

I think this is the first time I've disagreed with Cleos point of view. Probably because I agree with Gringo. He generally has the most moral standpoint, even if he isn't the best at articulation. State mandated murder is never acceptable, even as a punishment. Have the prisoner work with the pay repaying the victims - this produces value. Death creates no value and just justifies the idea some people can be Murdered whilst others can't and that's never a good route to go down. The falsely accused can be released from prison. The falsely executed cannot be brought back to life.

Bowl is a mystery to me. I pretty much never agree with his takes but he makes me laugh the most and I can’t help but be enchanted by his charisma.

"Human rights should be conditional" I don't think Cleo understands how dangerous that truly is.

I thought we agreed human experimentation was much more useful, with that the death penalty is useless

Disagreements to the death penalty fall into one of 2 sides “It’s morally incorrect” “They don’t suffer enough”

I thoroughly agree with the point made in 6:10 It is brutally accurate in detailing all the possible things that can happen while you've been in prison. But it's still a nonzero chance that you can pull through it. However, I feel that Critical left out, or is unaware of a specific detail. Most of the people who do pull through aren't motivated with some whimsical hope, but it's usually an aggressive mentality, such as pure spite, I've met exactly two people who came back from rock bottom, They had looked back at the hell they've been through and what it cost them, saw the option for the Final Release but spat in its eye, deciding that it would mean they'd have lost the fight. In short, they're still alive and kicking out of sheer force of will and spite. I've no idea what one of them does nowadays, but the second person is now one angry handyman

The problem with the death penalty is exactly as Gringo said. Justice isn't flawless, and it's only a matter of "when" that an innocent will be executed for a crime they did not commit. When you factor in also the fact that the carceral system of the United States is privately owned and is basically an industry, you also get to the fact that law enforcement is encouraged to get as many people incarcerated as possible. There are many reported cases of people being pressured and threatened into confessing crimes they did not commit. "But spending years in prison isn't much better" No it isn't indeed. It's the entire system that needs to change, but at the very least stopping profit-driven motives from getting innocent people killed would be a good start. Now that doesn't get to the issue of the death penalty in other nations where the issue is not the same. But law enforcement is still not flawless anywhere. If the carceral system treated the people within it with some dignity, being condemned wouldn't be seen as a fate worse than death in the first place. The only ones that should get the guillotine (or whatever) are the rich whenever we manage to get our hands on them. Good riddance. Edit: Also, holy damn. I like Cleo but "human rights should be conditional" is just *not it*. That is the most dangerous slippery slope that a society can thread on. Once you start to set a precedent for removing rights, you can bet that every opportunity will be used to push this further. You can't just decide that a group you personally dislike is unworthy of rights, because I can fucking bet that there are a ton who'd be more than glad to remove Cleo's own if they had the chance. You can't take such arbitrary measures willy-nilly.

I definitely feel we are too cynical about rehabilitation. Murders are not usually random. They are often emptionally driven mistakes. Mistakes that need correction, but still. Very very few people are truly irredeemable sociopaths. Hell, not even every sociopath is bad - some learn how to function and make a good positive influence despite their messed up brain chemistry. I am much more interested in creating thorough attempts for rehabilitation first and then apply whatever punishment. At that point, we gave them a chance, if they didnt take it, thats on them.

People often forget that executing someone in the U.S generally costs more than life in prison Edit: Since some people in the replies don't seem to understand why, it is primarily due to a drawn out legal process, not the method of execution.

Seems this debate mostly went with a false dichotomy: death penalty or life sentence (or at least a very long encarceration). Only until the end did that one guy finally say the magic word: rehabilitation. The system right now is more focused on punishing that rehabilitating. "Bad human. Stay in this cell for however many years and think about what you've done." I wonder how that will turn out.

The problem with the death penalty is, as touched on in the video, merely an extension of the problems inherent in the justice system in which it inhabits. All arguments for and against it are simply downstream effects. Prejudice, inaccuracy, expense, cruelty -- to focus on the death penalty is to miss the forest for the trees. The biggest problem, at the end of the day, is waste -- the fact that a life sentence and the death penalty can be seen as functionally equivalent to both the punished and the state is absurd. Life should not be over once one is in prison. At the minimum, they could be used as a warm body -- creating some useful work for their continued existence. There's a farmhand shortage in the U.S. (and all sorts of other industries) -- making use of prisoners in such capacities would be a boon to all. If they show interest and aptitude, they could learn a trade or go to school, possibly contributing in science or other fields. Obviously, that comes with issues -- just read into neoslavery to get an idea of how it might be abused. And there's plenty of logistical considerations. But the fact that both the death penalty and life imprisonment are wasting a resource that could be leveraged to provide some amount of compensation for the crimes they committed is insane.

Thief is very little benefit to the death penalty, while there is a large risk of killing innocent people, as while as giving the gov authority to kill people. Plus it takes years for death row prisoners to be executed, execution is more expensive then a life sentence, and modern execution methods have seemingly only gotten more unreliable since the guillotine.

This argument is dumb because it all relies on the fact the execution methods are reliable. Unfortunately, the current execution methods often fail due poor human error and are still inhuman because of how executions get dragged out. Jacob Geller did a far better explanation than I ever could, and it highlights just how poorly this debate is being brought up nowadays.

To give my 2 cents, it's been shown that serial criminals commit crimes accepting full well to get the death penalty, so long as it means they can commit all kinds of atrocities. Is it really deterrence? It's more like a reward for these psychotic types. Think about it: they get news coverage, they get to become as famous as their idols (other classic serial criminals), and the death penalty allows them to escape from the social consequences of being an absolute monster. Meanwhile life in prison forces them to face reality for the rest of their life. And if they are also say... kid diddlers, the other inmates never miss the opportunity to make them regret ever doing that. It's by far a greater punishment than death for these psychos. In fact the only ones who are afraid of the death penalty are people who don't intend on becoming criminals any time soon. They're the ones afraid of being framed and killed for it. The actual guilty party will just do it without care that they'll die.

Compromise: the death penalty is legal but only for politicians. We put a guillotine outside of every government building just to remind them.

Finally more of these type debates.

The DLC case for Apollo Justice trilogy looks good

FC keeps missing the point in an uncharacteristic way here. with the one where gringo brings up the point of the death penalty executing innocent people, FC then expands it to the point where "being locked up could ruin an innocent person's life so we shouldn't do it" but it's fallacious, it's a false equivalency. The courts and justice systems have ways to appeal out of jail, parole, early dismissals, ect. and once you're out, there's therapists, non-profits to help you get back on your feet, support groups, ect. The justice system does not have necromancers. There is not even the possibility for recovery after an innocent person is executed. it's the difference between somewhat reversible harm, and completely irreversible harm. also, it's important to note that, like is currently happening in florida, having a death penalty opens the doors to an easier legal framework for genocide. Florida made sex crimes against minors punishable by death, and made it so the death penalty decision doesn't have to be unanimous. Now that sounds good perhaps (to people who support the death penalty), but the main issue is that they're also, simultaneously turning wearing drag around children (their definition of "drag" is loose enough to include "transwoman in a dress") as a sex crime. Same with supporting your trans child, or offering trans-affirming medical care. A death penalty not only opens a massive margin for error, but just the fact that it's not federally or constitutionally prohibited allows for easier structural abuse. for example: By this same vein they could pass an "anti terrorism" law that makes it so acts of property vandalism, as long as they can be classified as "terrorism" can be punishable by death. then expand the definition of "terrorism" to include actions by environmental rights groups (say the infamous "soup painting" or the civil disobedience at pipelines) all of a sudden, they have legal recourse to execute people for protesting. in conclusion, the rebuttal made is invalid, as it is a false equivalency, and as a whole the death penalty is far too flawed and allows much too easily for legal abuse.

There is actually a prison in Norway that strives to redeem people instead of punish and it is actually going pretty well. There is a shop in the prison with no security cameras and nobody has stolen from that shop.

I found myself agreeing with Critical Orgasm, Mafalda, and Gringo this time around. Also, if Faux would rather die than serve a life sentence, couldn’t he just be given a knife or poison so he could do the deed himself?

On the concept of human rights. Isn't it commonly agreed upon that by infringing on another person's human rights, you void your own?

The problem is that 1. false judgements can't be reversed, it's final, and 2. it's typically the same cost as far as I know, so the state doesn't safe money. There are exceptional cases where it you could justify execution, like mass murderers, but the problem with doing so that any uncertainty in the judgement is too much, and finding a system that secures that only the truly guilty die is impossible. Any innocent execution is too much, so execution shouldn't be legal.

Bowl's sudden aggressive flirtatiousness at the end really caught me off guard, lol But hell yeah, public executions! We can STREAM them now so even MORE people can see them.

Put plainly: I think that the death penalty should not be given to the state, because it allows a legal avenue for undesireables to be murdered. If the state is given the right to murder de jure, then those who wish to make it a de facto crime to... say, kiss the same gender, are at huge risk of being attacked for "being a pedo" at some inherent, magical, level. If the right to execution is given to the state, then the crimes that some officers of the law commit could be far more justly seen as simply a case of justice being brought into the hands of the witness, rather than a criminal engaging in a crime whilst under the mask of justice. I'm American, FYI.

I'm a weirdo in that I disagree with the death penalty-out of pity for the executioner, who is constantly asked to kill people he doesn't know, and who could be innocent, in the name of the state. That would wear on anyone, and while I can't speak for modern executioners, medieval executioners were ostracised to the point they basically had to marry amongst themselves. Plus, on some level it's less out of a desire for justice so much as brutal catharsis- and vengeance is a very untrustworthy emotion-I feel a lot of would-be tyrants act out of a misplaced sense of justice. I'd ask if they'd be willing to sign up as executioner themselves if they're so eager, but I'm afraid of who'd say yes.

The problem with the justice system is assuming criminals deserve a punishment. Instead of giving them a death sentence or even killing them, it's better to make prisons a place for recovery. This is exactly what Norway does, and guess what? "Only 20% of Norway's formerly incarcerated population commit another crime within two years of release." This is much better than the US' near 50%. "According to the National Institute of Justice, almost 44 percent of the recently released return before the end of their first year out." And also France's 60%. "80,000 people are released from prison each year in France, 80% of whom receive no support. Of these 80%, 59% return to prison within 5 years, and 31% within a year of release." And Germany's 50% "48% reconvicted and 35% reimprisoned within 3 years in Germany" You get the idea, criminals are usually people who are mentally unwell, and Norway's justice system recognises that by making prison basically a long therapy session

I feel like Faux Cares’s argument hinges too much on “I personally think prison is worse than death” which at most would argue for people with life sentences being able to opt into a death penalty if they wish. Then again you could argue that the others' argument hinges too much on “I personally think death is worse than prison”

6:10 Okay, how did he write that all down and still stay optimistic about your life getting back together?

Such a complex topic..... As much as I wish those people who kill other people suffer, i don't wish innocent people be involved in traps and false accusations that would lead them to their demise.

19:00 "Bowl's feelin romantical." Bowl never dissapoints in saying random shit 😂

I actually would rather serve a life sentence than die now. I'm still quite young so that imprisonment would last 70-80% of a healthy human lifespan for me. Especially so if I'm innocent and have a chance to get out. My life and sentience are very important to me which is why I refuse to consume alcohol to retain my clarity and usually sleep only as long as necessary for health.

"Buy the family a hamster with the same name and get over it" That deadpan delivery gave me serious whiplash.

Life-long imprisonment being worse than the death penalty to some people isn‘t a point in favour of the death penalty, it‘s just a symptom of a backwards approach to jails and criminal punishment in general. Most crimes don‘t happen because people aren‘t deterred enough by the consequences, but as a result of the offender’s upbringing and social circles. If you, say, live in a poor neighbourhood with high crime rates and grow up to commit crimes yourself, it‘s not just because there‘s more incentive to do crime if you‘re poor. It is also a result of, among other things, being brought up by parents or one parent who most likely don‘t have many reason to preach the law to you as it failed to help them and will likely fail to help you get out of poverty, interacting with similar people all throughout your formative years, probably experiencing trauma you will never have the capabilities to treat and all around being desensitised to crime as a child. To focus the justice system on the punishment of criminals, even if their reasons are not being failed by society, does nothing but sate the longing of retribution of a few. It does nothing to prevent the actual causes, it doesn‘t contribute anything to society at large (as opposed to rehabilitating people, if possible). And the call for the death penalty is nothing if not a giant focus on punishment, where there should be focus on prevention, rehabilitation and treatment. You might not like it if someone kills a child and gets to live, but giving the punitive authority tho the state to decide if someone dies should definitely not rest on what people emotionally feel about a crime as an immediate reaction. And in my opinion the only actual argument for a death penalty is one of emotion, one that longs for some felt justice through ultimate retribution. Would someone who would assault a child stop to think "oh no, this could get me killed. I should stop" or conversely "I am going to assault this child, I‘m only going to be imprisoned anyways."? I don’t really believe so. If they were in a state of mind to consider the consequences of their actions or felt they had reasons to consider them at all, they either wouldn’t have committed them, or, had they committed them regardless, they are most likely someone undeterred by consequences in general. People who commit things they are aware of as being generally seen as wrong also don‘t plan to get caught. I am aware that deterrence does seem to work for many, but what I’m trying to say with this is that it is in my opinion a reasonable assumption to think those on whom the deterrence works would generally adhere to social norms even without deterrence due to being properly integrated into their society and/or being instilled with the corresponding moral values and empathy during their upbringing as well as living a good-enough life. This is why I find the argument of deterrence in general and especially in the way it was used in the video completely lacking in any nuance as just a "if you could potentially get killed when you do [x] you wouldn’t do [x]", questionable at best On another note, I find it rather peculiar that Bowl doesn’t consider a murderer or child molester as human as himself, when they are just as you a product of their circumstances. Bowl particularly stated they shouldn’t have human rights as they should not be considered human, but the thing about humans is that they’re a very social species. The reason we are far more advanced in many fields of study than, say, 20.000 years ago, is after all not because changed significantly on a biological level, but because we educate our young and preserve acquired knowledge over generations. The reason Bowl isn‘t a murderer while another British man stabbed a guy to dwath despite theoretically having more or less the same mental faculties isn’t because the Bowl as an individual is somehow fundamentally superior to the other person, but because Bowl has had the luck to be born into circumstances within the current system where he could grow up to be a somewhat functional individual. It is not by his own merit that Bowl has some basic morals irl (I assume he does), but by the merit of his parents, friends, teachers and so on. This is why I find that particular argument somewhat shallow as it places blame on an individual where the blame should be on the society that created them. I‘m not saying it excuses what these people do but for the stated reasons I believe killing them doesn‘t really solve anything either. I do apologise for my comment being a bit lengthy when its points could be articulated much more precisely and with fewer words but I‘m writing it at a later hour than I probably should and my English gets a bit diffuse at night. Anyways thanks for another good video, usually I find myself agreeing with you more than Gringo but I suppose differing opinions are the points of discussions after all. tl;dr I don‘t like the death penalty and especially not calling for it in response to cases like the one in France because in my opinion it really doesn’t do anything to address the underlying issues at all and only serves to make you feel better by having retributive justice while distracting from actual long-term solutions. [Edit: formatting for better readability, missing apostrophes, faulty mental autocompletion of words and sentences]

I have a few details to had about the crime deterrence of death penalty. I recall a study saying that the number of crimes in the US are higher in states with the death penalty than in states without. Of course, it doesn't necessarily means that the death penalty encourage crimes or anything of the sort, but it does put a dent in the idea that it prevent's them. I believe the reason for these data is that states withe the death penalty tend to be more reactionary in their application of the law. They arrest people for small crimes that would only be worth a fine in other states and their prison systems are usually more focused on punishment than reformation. Regarding public executions, they actually used to favor crime. In Victorian London, thieves would take advantage of the crowds gathered in such events to pick-pocket people discretely while crime lords (some of whom were police officers or judiciary officials) exploited the sentence to get rid of rivals and strengthen their hold on the criminal underworld. Finally, I would like to point out a specific point mentioned in the video. It is stated that the number of death penalties has been in decline for some time now, making it more and more unlikely that innocents will be executed. That may be the case, but who's to say that trend will continue? A surge of criminal violence, a change of government or a national/global paranoia similar to the red scare could all lead to an increase of death penalties. The world and general mentalities are ever-changing wish makes it difficult to predict how things will evolve. Food for thoughts.

If only the point Critical Orgasm brought up around 17:45 were discussed. Aside from the risks that, in essence, the whole society becomes murderers if an innocent person is executed, as stated in the video, we must also consider that Scandinavian countries have had a lot of success with rehabilitation, which has been shown to reduce recidivism rates to a much greater extent than the U.S.A's system. As Critical Orgasm points out, the criminal system's function should be to, indeed, focus on giving people a second chance (through rehabilitation or mere therapy, depending on the way in which someone is wrong in the head), rather than to have this obsession with revenge and punishment which, to the surprise of virtually no one, accomplishes nothing useful. Although perhaps that warrants a different discussion on the criminal system itself. Sure, perhaps the family of the victim gains some closure because the perpetrator of the crime is dead, and while I think it ridiculous to sacrifice a person's life for mere closure, let's suppose that there is nothing wrong with that. *The person who died does not magically come back because of the perpetrator's death.* Not only is the victim still dead, now another life has been wasted, and the closure that the victim's family gets is good, until they realise that it accomplishes nothing since the victim is dead and no amount of revenge shall fix that. At the very least keeping the person alive and attempting rehabilitation might ensure that less lives are lost overall, and in the best case scenario the perpetrator could after a long time come to terms with the victim's relatives and friends. But no, revenge must be the best thing, right? It is not as if the argument that it is a deterrent works, either, as I pointed out earlier in this comment through the comparison between Scandinavian countries and the U.S.A. Besides that, anyone who commits a crime such as murder is not right in the head to begin with, for if they were then they would not commit the crime. They may be so far gone that they do not care about the consequences and thus commit the crime anyways; they may get away with it; or they may even increase their crimes because they will be put to death regardless, which admittedly is just an extension of the first scenario. The first and last reasons especially matter because without the death penalty, they do not exist. Less reason to commit crime = good. Even if criminals are aware of what they are doing, if they were mentally sound they would not do it. Therefore, rehabilitation is a good way to attempt to eliminate the psychological aspect. Keep in mind that the message this sends to a society's citizens, at least over time, is essentially that, depending on the crimes you commit, there is absolutely nothing you can do to make this right, and you must be executed for being a being consisting of pure evil. Which sounds... interesting, considering the fact that people, even criminals, are able to change for the better. These are real humans we are talking about, not Jekyll & Hyde. As pointed out by Gringo in the video, people all have some good to them, no matter how small, which is not explored as far as possible by killing them just so that some others can have closure.

The death penalty should be illegal, but only because there will always be a chance of false conviction. There are absolutely people that society would benefit with the removal of, but it’s never worth the death of an innocent

I understand that some crimes are irredeemable and that some people really do deserve to die, but I can't get behind the death penalty at all. I think it's absurd how supporting the death penalty was framed as the "right" opinion in this video because somehow life in prison is worse. There are a lot of points that I believe weren't appropriately addressed in this video, namely how nobody should be able to decide if a person deserves to die, I don't think there are any people in the world who could be trusted for such a decision. A person's life is just too valuable to be taken away on the whim of any group of people, even if every single person in the world thinks a person should die, why does the person have to die? A person's life is their own, and shouldn't be in the hands of anybody, not the government, not a jury, and not any other group of people. Additionally, killing an innocent person is so much worse than not killing a person who deserves it, like an infinite amount of times worse. Life in prison sucks, it's awful, but dying is worse, it just is. If a person is innocent they can be released from jail, and no matter when they are released and no matter how tough it is to come back to society, it's better than being killed for a crime you didn't commit. If the person prefers death then I think they should be able to commit suicide, of course, such a system could be abused but I think if created properly it would be significantly better than killing people. There's just not really a reason for the death penalty even in this video, if life in prison is so bad that you would rather die then doesn't it make sense to put horrible criminals in prison for their lives? If you prefer to die than serve out your sentence then doesn't it mean it's a better deterrent to crime since it's more of a punishment? Life in prison bounces back and forth from being too lenient to being too harsh in this video. Overall, I don't really like this video and I think it's one of the weaker videos on this channel, where it never really feels like a real conversation is taking place.

Honestly, I'm like in the middle when it comes to this. I believe in redemption, but if they can't be redeemed, at least a life sentence could prevent them from posing a threat. Also, just punishing someone without understanding their motives is uh... This doesn't have anything to do with my stance on the death penalty, but uh, I'd rather rehabilitation. Most people aren't just irredeemable monsters. I believe people should be at least understood before giving them the right punishment. Again, nothing to do with my stance on the death penalty. Sorry for the paragraph, lol- Edit: If anyone wishes to offer their piece, this comment is open. This is simply my view on the matter.

I've always thought that death should always be a choice for people who are condemned to a prison sentence, at least if they go for a certain arbitrary minimum duration. That way, you reduce the moral issue, since it's their choice to die or to just stay in jail.

You're all missing an important point. If a person kills someone and knows that they'll be dead if found, they'll kill more people to protect themselves from the consequences of their actions, if the sentence is lesser however, they might not consider it as much as if the oposite were true.

7:17 tbh Volkeh wasn't human in the first place...

I'm with CO, mafalda and (I can't believe I'm going to say this) gringo on this one Their logic was more sound, sometimes based on studies and history, while the team on favor of the death penalty didn't give much reason to do it, other than saving tax money and that it is better than a life sentence The second one is funny to me, because no one talked about the possibility of banning life sentences. Namely, in Spain, both life sentences and death penalties are illegal, with the maximum sentence being 25 years. That means that, if you commit a horrible crime in your 20s, and reform in prison, you could be released for good behavior in your late 30s early 40s, with plenty of time to get back on your feet And if you do it at your 40s, you would get out either at the retirement age, or close to, which would entitle you to a minimum pension from the government once reached, and we have a special pension for people over 55 without a job and in need, so there's that too What I wanted to illustrate is how, in a system built around the idea of prisons as rehabilitation rather than vindictive punishments, that little chance CO talked about it's not so little Sure, the social aspects would still be a hard, I'm not denying that, but the chance is far bigger than in countries with life sentences, and infinitely bigger than in countries with the death penalty

in a life sentence you have around half your life to be proven innocent before it stops being worth it. if you're dead you're dead. you don't have 40 years to potentially be revived when you're proven innocent. Sure if you aren't proven innocent for like 70 years it is a rather useless gesture, but what about 10 years? 5 years? you still have a life ahead of you in that case.

Everything about the death penalty is flawed ESPECIALLY in the US. #1. The most common method of death used in the US is lethal injection, and due to the for profit systems in place, they often don't use strong enough doses to actually kill people so you have instances where a person survives having their heart set on fire (hyperbole), feeling the worst pain someone can feel besides actually being set on fire. Then you have to do it again because there's no legal recourse for WHEN they mess up. So, if you've got the death penalty and the state fucks up, you just have to take it (ALSO, doctors aren't allowed to perform lethal injection 'cause Hippocratic Oath so they have untrained prison personnel perform it). #2. You would be surprised (or not surprised if you keep up with US news) at how unbelievably often people in the states get wrongfully convicted due to the abysmal police system prioritizing arrests over following procedure and being human frickin' beings. A good chunk of these arrests are actually illegal, the cops obfuscate and lie to get you to allow them to break procedure, there is a HUGE racial profiling problem, and there's almost no way to get your sentence overturned if you were arrested and find proof you were actually innocent and that's IF you can get a lawyer to help you. I was gonna write more but my wrist is starting to hurt and I don't know if I'll be able to properly argue my stance without screwing up if I type it all out in a huge paragraph like this. I'll probably come back to it later...

I'm surprised but happy another video came so quickly!

i feel like most of the crew here forgot that Bowl is an agent of chaos, and actually take his rambling seriously

Fuck cared said really wisely that we don't care if the guilty guy like his sentence. Why in the world his whole argument stands on "I prefer death"? It's contradictory. Personally, I think neither death penalty or life sentence are great. We should re-educate people, not mess them up more than they already are. Oh, and death penalty costs a LOT of money Cleo.

Why does this channel not have 1m+ subscribers yet?? It’s peak content.

One of your main points in this argument is why I think we should keep the death sentence illegal. Being locked up against your will for the rest of your life. Death sentence is the easy way out. Instead of being punished of the crime (and actually feeling punished) by being locked in a jail cell for the rest of your life, you just get killed and avoid all that. Why do school shooters kill themselves? Perhaps the main reason is embarassment after seeing what they've done but you can't deny part of that is that they're going to face punishment for their crimes. If heavy criminals knew that they wouldn't have to stay in a jail cell for the rest of their life, they'd have even less restraint on comitting the action. The psychos that would be unaffected by this are not as many as those that would. I'll quote what you tell every guard in Solitude: "I'd rather die than go to prison." Additionally, the points FOR keeping the death sentence illegal are sound. Innocent people have been killed. The innoncence of some people has been proved after they've been jailed and they have the potential of getting a second life, no matter how hard it is.

Gringo: "You can't replace a person with a pet!" Bowl: "Yuh uh"

People often see the justice system only as punitive, but often forget that it is also rehabilitative. The death Penalty removes its ability to rehabilitate. I am French as well, and I have very strong opinions against the Death Penalty. If you want to know how we abolished it, I recommend you read into Robert Badinter's work and legacy. That man, a lawyer, was a hero who fought tooth and nail against the Death Penalty. One single page from his book holds more water than the entirety of the arguments presented in this video.

The fact that so many people keep committing crimes because they either think they won't get caught or they find that the potential rewards outweigh the risk of punishment strongly suggest that a purely punitive justice system is inherently flawed.

It's incredible to me how Bowl can be the personification of chaos, say a coherent thing out of nowhere, and return to burn the entire world.

i’ve not watched the video completely, but I think the issue is not the death penalty itself, but prisons and how we treat criminals. This may sound cliche, and it probably isn’t flawless, but a prisons goal shouldn’t be to keep the good people safe and the bad people locked inside, It should be about making the bad people good again. If you think about it, prison doesn’t teach you discipline, it teaches you punishment, and you’re more likely to be resentful about it. Imagine an innocent man being falsely put in jail. He’s more likely to feel resentful and relieved when the sentence is over, and since when you’re out of jail, you likely have no where to call home, more likely to turn to crime. Prison, and how it treats criminals itself is flawed. Prison should be a place to teach discipline. Some people who turn to crime are poor and are in need of help. Maybe giving them a well-polished place, and after relieving their sentence maybe giving them like a month or two a home to stay in, some shelter you know? So they don’t immediately go back to crime, and instead have the time to get a job. Basically, prison shouldn’t punish the criminals, it should discipline them.

Honestly, make it legal, but the criminal has to meet a certain criteria. Something along the lines of like: A medium to large Mass murder (small one would probably be like 12 - 20ish years) Being in the FBI's most wanted An active danger to society, when a mental hospital doesn't work And other very serious crimes. Some crimes shouldn't warrant it, like robbery, assault and battery, and bribery. That's just how I view it. Edit: Not everyone agrees with what should be on the death penalty list. We can see it clearly in the replies below and in other comments. This isn't shaming, but it is important to know. Another thing I'd like to bring up is repeated offenses. When it is clear that the criminal will not stop doing crimes, it may be acceptable to do the death penalty. But before that, those people should be put on life in jail. If they try to escape, or are attacking other prisoners or guards, then they should be put on for the death penalty.

Something I'd like to add is that in the US, the people on death row usually sit there for upwards of 30 years, while granted it's no life sentence, it's still a lot of time to re-evaluate the verdict of the criminal.

i think this is the first baguette industries™️ debate that ive seen that isnt either dealing with annoying people or dealing with drunk people

When people speak in a way that implies that they are inherently better than other people, it sets off something deep within me. The gall. All men are capable of wretched acts. There are not "good people" and "bad people", there are simply people. I don't really have a stance about the death penalty but it rubs me the wrong way to see anybody talking about other people's lives so flippantly. Bowl is a troll, sure, but FC and Cleo did not seem to be so sarcastic and that kind of snobbery leaves a bitter taste in the mouth.

I guess what decerns a hardened criminal versus someone innocent/being framed from dieing for no real reason?

"holding people somewhere against their will is a violation to human rights... Unless there is a "legal justification to do it" FC you are SO close to understanding the problem with the justice system

I like this content because it passes time greatly

Only if we got the person who committed the crime every single time, which cannot happen, so no lol

Like the philosopher once told, " i agree to relinquish my right to maintain death penalty, but only ask the murderers to do the same first". Or something like that. You get the idea. Also, a jurist (i forgot which one) once theorised that all sentences iriginate from the death penalty, as it was the worse which could be given. As such, a judiciary shstem without it is no more coherent and able to judge effectuvly the gravity of crimes. So we need to keept the death penalty, at least as a symbolic penalty for the categorisation of charges and their punishment.

I'm honestly surprised that this video isn't longer

Another thought-provoking video, very nice. I'm pretty staunchly against the death penalty myself (I agree with Mafalda's arguments for the most part, but I have my own reasons not even mentioned in the video!) but I see a lot of merit in F.C's arguments, too. It certainly helps me understand why some countries continue to enforce it so strongly... until now, I kinda just chalked it up to an unjustifiable need for "revenge". Also, it's a little off-topic but kind of got mentioned in the video anyways; recidivism is common when ex-convicts feel they can't adjust to the working world once they leave prison. If prison doesn't actually prevent criminals from committing crimes again, then it's obviously a deeply broken system - it'd be interesting to see you guys discuss the prison system itself and how to fix the myriad of problems it tends to cause.

One crime can be forgiven or forgotten, by the second they are either too volatile or purposely disregarding another persons rights, thereby forfeiting theirs in the manner they have disregarded.

If we are talking about the perspective of the loved ones of the murderer it is only fair to talk about the perspective of the loved ones of the killed. And they wold almost definitely want the murderer to be executed.

I was expecting Bowl to say something about torture, which is worse than death, and I must say I'm genuinely surprised he didn't, now I kinda wish for a 2nd part with the addition of that argument, it was a very interesting one

This feels like watching the Daredevil vs Punisher debate all over again.

You missed the solution : make prisons better, so that you haven't lost everything once you get out, and you'd rather be in prison than die. You may think that's going easy on criminals, but i'd rather go easy on criminals than hurt the innocent, and there will always be innocents in prison. Indeed, i'm of the mind that the goal of justice and prison shouldn't be to punish criminal, but protect the innocent, even at the cost of being merciful on criminals. Besides, even if the goal was punishment and the criminal was guilty, their punishment is supposed to be over once they get out of prison. They should be able to resume their life without struggle. And as far as i know, the death penalty actually costs more than life sentence, due to the many procudures in place to try and make sure the person is actually guilty (procedures that have nonetheless failed several times in the past). Also, i don't think harsher punishment can deter criminals much. Criminals usually commit crimes either when they think they can get away with it, when they lost control due to emotions, or when they think they have no choice but to commit the crime; so they either think they can avoid consequences, are unable to think about the consequences, or have no choice but risk the consequences. The exception is when the consequences are smaller than the benefits : if doing the crime rewards you more than the punishment, then you have no reason not to do it (aside from your conscience, of course). That's why the justice system can deter criminals but having overly rash punishments does not : once the punishment is greater than the benefits of the crime, only the criminals for which consequences have no meaning are still thinking about doing the crime.

I should be free to live in a country where capital punishment is not practiced. In a world where the legal system is routinely manipulated and mocked by those with power, I will not stand for those same people being able to not only escape the punishment with impunity, but to pursue the death penalty on anyone they don't like as well. Don't delude yourselves into thinking that the death penalty will have any effect on crime, because from statistics in the past we can draw that it will not have the desired effect on our society. And if you're just looking for blood at the end of the day, then God, or whatever you believe in, help you. The world is brutal yes, that doesn't mean we have to emulate it.

Bowl: I don't want bloodshed. Also Bowl: kill him. His dog too. Maybe his family, if they want this. Replace the dead people with animals.

This is probably too personal, but I know someone who had a cousin who killed both their parents, afterwards, the person I know felt like they’d rather not know their cousin at all, or even know they existed in the first place. That was _their_ feelings about it. At the same time, I know this is a complicated subject, everyone is different in their reactions and what their feelings are on execution... but what will we do if the perpetrator will not change and will offend again? Even with help, you cannot force a person to change for the better, they have to do that themselves. Still better to give them a second chance at life, either way though, no matter which side you pick, you’re still going to fail someone.

This topic doesn't have Harry... WHERE'S HARRY,

I think my argument would be that the death penalty can take too long. Someone can commit a crime in 2008 to be executed this year. Imagine what that would do to the victim's family or/and the perpetrator's family. Also, I find the concept of the perpetrator's families watching them get executed kinda cruel. I for one wouldn't want to watch my family member be killed in front of me. And if we are talking about child murderers if they get life imprisonment they will most likely die. I don't know if this applies to other countries but American prisons are not fond of child molesters and child murderers, the inmates will and try to kill them. I've even watched an interview where the inmate said "If you were sharing a cell with a child molester or a child murder and you don't kill them, the inmates will kill you."

Im disappointed they hadnt mentioned the rights of the state (in-depth) to deprive of a person what it cannot return. Also, that the judicial system isnt or shouldn't be punitive, but preventative. There's no point in punishing crime because that doesnt benefit noncriminals. Punishment should only go to the degree to prevent crime. If you cannot be reformed, you should be given the life (or death) sentence for the safety of others

9:18 Bowl only makes good sense when he’s high and you CANNOT convince me otherwise.

Off with their heads!

I personally think death penalty should be brought back in the most extreme cases. The man who stabbed six people (four being children) in broad daylight, in the middle of a park, in front of everyone, there's NO doubt he is guilty, there's NO room to say "he was framed" "he didn't mean it" or other bullshittery. Off with his head, no waste of our money by keeping him alive and cared for in prison. A man who is framed for killing his best friend because their body was found in the trunk of his car, that's another story. Nobody saw it, it's way "easier" to build this up entirely (and quite literally shown in Ace Attorney lmao). My point is: death penalty should be back when there is ZERO doubts about a murderer/rapist/pedo being guilty. Yes, I include rapists and pedos in this too. They ruin a person's life. They don't deserve to live anymore. Also that ending with Bowl lmao

When Bowl gets serious, it's menacing, and I can't get enough of it. Well, enjoy it while it lasts.

Bowl is on FIRE today.

I know this is unrelated but how does the Omegaverse make you feel?

Let me propose an alternative to death penalty, forced excercise bike generator usage, making them turn into energy providers. Either that or they get no food. This would help a bit with the energy crisis.

9:46 WHY IS BOWL THE ONE BRINGING THE MOST SOLID ARGUMENT IN THIS VIDEO? THE MOST UNHINGED PERSON IS BRINGING THE POINT I AGREE WITH THE MOST WTF

About using execution as a crime deterrent - it's a terrible idea. I'll just provide an example. It most likely won't stop rapist from raping someone, but now there's a much bigger chance that victim will be killed. Perhaps it will stop some small robbers and etc. But like Bowl stated, there are some people who are just savages. Psychopaths, for example. No punishment will stop them from conducting a crime. They'll just become more merciless.

Anyone who is wholesale against the death penalty is therefore saying that there is no crime that could ever warrent it and that just isn't true. There absolutely should be a death penalty, but it's of the utmost importance that what crimes it could be given for should be detailed and well defined. Stabing children should absolutely be on that list of crimes.

It should be legal but only if we use big fucking executioner blades to do it and sometimes we throw them into a gladiator ring where they have to fight for their freedom.

When done properly death penalty can be the best deterrent for the worst crime So, in the off chance that any innocents should be convicted, the whole thing just becomes the trolley problem

7:18 Thanks for fulfilling my wish, FC. Will start working of the second FBI Out of Context soon

Bowl is extra chaotic evil this episode. 😂

I think the biggest hole in this discussion is the massive assumptions you made about the nature of the justice system. Many of the negative things you associated with the experience of being in prison that were used to justify the position that being in prison is a fate subjectively worse than death are not inherent aspects of prison as a form of justice but rather flaws present in most current prison institutions. I would have liked to see where the arguments went after prison reform was added to the mix, and maybe a change of social stigmatization towards imprisonment. After all, why would you be embarrassed to be visited in prison assuming either way your loved ones know what you did to get yourself in there? Either you're in prison for something they don't mind, in which case why would they care you're in prison, or they do mind, in which case their disgust has nothing to do with where you're located at the time.

The problems with punishments like these is literally the fact that solving one issue causes others Execute killers? May be used by people in power to frame and kill who they want Jail to all? Sometimes is not enough punishment Such a complex problem that i cant really think of a good solution

I would be most curious about what method of the death penalty FC, Cleo, and Bowl would advocate for. I am against the death penalty in all cases, but I would have to go with firing squad. The guillotine is a close second, but the cultural stigma around it makes it unusable today.

9:17 I wasn't expecting a debate about the death penalty to move into 1984 and the meaning of freedom

Death penalty is just revenge, fueled by people's inability to keep their emotions in check. It's not about justice, it's about satisfaction at seeing an evil person suffer and die, aka sadism. Fact of the matter is that death is final. Wrongful imprisonment still leaves you with countless possibilities. That's why comparisons like the ones FC made are stupid. This fixation with revenge comes from the misconception that the purpose of prisons and the justice system is punishment. It is not. The purpose is to create a safer and better society for law abiding citizens. Prisons achieve this by separating dangerous individuals from the rest of society until it is safe to release them. Data and common sense show that death penalty does nothing to deter crime, therefore it has no purpose in a modern justice system. So unless you want to advocate for a hyper machiavellian society, where instead of prisons, all criminals are swiftly killed for the sake of efficiency, you have no reasonable arguments for death penalty.