@@zaidmarwan4977 He's arrogant. He's well spoken. Very true. But I'd love some examples of what you're claiming. I haven't seen him ever be a dumbass, but there are disagreements I have with some of his stances. Obviously, that doesn't mean he's unintelligent simply based off differing opinions. And when has he been racist? I have yet to stumble upon that, but admittedly, I haven't seen everything Christopher Hitchens.
Am I the only one that pauses to look up words he uses and learns something new every time? Not just the words, but the eloquent, subtlety with which he uses them. We miss you, Christopher.
I agree he is both erudite and eloquent and agree that justice in the USA is at times barbaric but he let himself down over his support for Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq
😂😂😂😂 Every so often he tosses-in some abstruse verbal rarity that befuddles us regular folk. I absolutely love it. He was just gone WAAYY too soon. What a jewel.
Just don't use it for abortion. See how that works? Guilty of my own hypocrisy and keenly aware that my Savior was a victim of (unjust) capital punishment, I grew up and decided that (as much as I might like it personally) the death penalty is wrong and America should cease and desist with it. Far better punishment to let the guilty suffer internally for decades while also allowing the fairly rare case of the wrongly convicted to be discovered and corrected. For many years I was both "pro-life" and "pro-death penalty" though I admitted to myself my own inconsistency/hypocrisy.
@@NVRAMboi pro-life / pro-death penalty hypocrisy? So an innocent baby and savage murderer or rapist are the same thing? Any person that kills an innocent or rapes is not a human and should be put down.
@@NVRAMboi I suspect there are quite a lot of people in certain parts of the US who consider themselves anti-abortion and pro-death penalty. George Carlin had a skit about how these people would fight to the death for your right to exist as a foetus, but once you’re actually born you’re on your own! Conversely, I must admit I also suspect most people I know in real life would probably say the opposite.
We know that approx 4% of death row inmates are innocent. I, for one, cannot abide this injustice that is the death penalty. For any sane, reasonable person to accept this state-sanctioned murder, shame on you. So glad to be Australian.
@@ironnads7975 Wow, what a terrible non-sequitur. The brutality of some crimes has nothing to do with innocent people dying and languishing on death rows. If you're unable to reconcile that your political views lead to the deaths of hundreds of innocent people, then shame on you; it should make you uncomfortable. Have some humanity (ironically, something you obviously wish to see in others, but can't produce it in yourself).
@@skullsaintdead I agree with you....but, I’m a hypocrite, I’ll be honest. If someone hurt one of my family members, I’d want revenge. Not justice...revenge. BUT, I’d have to be 100% certain that the person was guilty. I don’t like the death penalty. I know it’s murdered many innocent people. My hypocrisy means that I’d soon be gunning for their heads if it was one of mine. It’s a strange way to feel about it. Let’s not kid ourselves, most people aren’t looking for justice to be served...it’s cold, hard, REVENGE.
@@pommiebears Indeed, its good that you have the insight to recognise you're motivated by revenge. Many people feel this way: to wish ill upon those who do you & your loved ones harm. But, as you've stated, we can never know with absolute certainty that someone is guilty. And imagine supporting the death penalty against a man who killed your wife or daughter and post-execution, discovering the case was flimsy, the police had blinders on for the suspect, evidence exonerating him wasn't submitted and most disturbingly, a series of eerily similar rapes and murders have continued even after the condemned man was jailed. Imagine the guilt you'd feel for condemning an innocent man to death just so you could feel avenged. These are the last words of Colin Campbell Ross, before the gallows, sentenced to death for the 1921 Melbourne rape and murder of a 12 year old girl: "I am now face to face with my Maker, and I swear by Almighty God that I am an innocent man. I never saw the child. I never committed the crime, and I don't know who did. I never confessed to anyone. I ask God to forgive those who have sworn my life away, and I pray God to have mercy on my poor darling mother, and my family." Of course, he did not commit the crime. The police had blinders on for Colin, despite how cooperative he was, and the public wanted someone to blame. More disturbingly, Melbourne Gaol was experimenting with a new hanging technique. His neck did not break and he struggled for minutes, convulsing. They never used that technique again. In 2008, he became the first person in Australia to be posthumously exonerated. I can barely live with the notion our nation executed this innocent man and I was born 70 years after his death. Resist the desire for revenge.
@Michael Salter stupid .nah bro I understand to the point of not being able to crrectcrrectly typing to communicate with çhimps descendants such as you.
I have been passionately opposed to the death penalty all my adult life - I could never have expressed it as intelligently and articulately as this. You are sorely missed Mr Hitchens.
@Jcorb precisely... You can almost see the Marxist and humanitarian side of Hitchens here and it is impossible to square it with the later character who vociferously and relentlessly advocated for a war that turned a country of 26 million people upside down.
@@BashirAhmad-yx6df it isnt impossible. listen to his reasoning for why he advocated it and he is the same as always. after the war was such an awful blunder he maintained that what he said at the time was accurate. he never said the war was a success. he advocated the removal of WMDs, he didnt advocate war itself.
Yeah, that's because you're a straight-up d_mb-f__k... and you PROVE it APTLY by idolizing a guy who FLAT OUT LIED BY OMISSION, something as a lifelong Hitch fan he abhorrently loathed in others, YET HE DID IT HERE, and in many other places. NEVER. I repeat NEVER have heroes or gods, YOU'LL ALWAYS LLOK LIKE AN A-HOLE and/or be disappointed. Hitch lied his arse off about the entire thing, and you're too f'n brainless to actually take 2 minutes to research the FACTS about Rickie & what he did and how he WAS ABSOLUTELY NOT "mentally retarded"... rather he was of sound mind until he killed & permanently maimed multiple innocent people for insanely benign reasons, then when he agreed would turn himself in after running from the cops THEN MURDERED THE NEGOTIATOR... THEN shot himself in the head, thus lobotomizing himself in the process. So, he WAS NOT mentally handicapped prior to all of that, he DID THAT WILLFULLY AND HAPPILY. THAT'S why he was executed. And while I stand against the DP in most instances, there are some who deserve it. ABSOLUTELY. Grow up you abject clown, how is it that an adult like you can sit here4 and type ANYTHING seriously-regarding being articulate without first having the mental aptitude to do the due diligence that a 2nd grader does in writing a one page paper about how to put a skateboard together. FFS, you're PATHETIC! INSANELY & ABSOLUTELY! UGH!
Excellent point that executing an innocent person also means that the real killer for sure is getting away with it. That would not be the case if the innocent just got a prison sentence. That argument alone should be enough for anyone to be against capital punishment.
@sietse de hoop It's not possible for laws and judicial processes to be perfect or have all the knowledge, therefor completely closing the case by executing the suspect is wrong. The only exception is if some other greater wrong is being done by letting them live, like too big of a chance they get out or too much resources used on keeping them alive. Nether of these are the case in the west today.
sietse de hoop Then no judge could ever pass the sentence. Absolute knowledge is an illusion, we just don’t have it. A piece of CCTV footage, is that enough? What if I told you someone planted it there, doctored to frame a killer. The problem with the death penalty is it presumes absolute knowledge is present in cases when it is only ever statistical, and taking a man’s life on a gamble just isn’t justified, not matter what the odds.
Ronnie Childs I don’t completely agree, but I do agree that if he didn’t have that entrancing voice then he wouldn’t have been a third as famous and well esteemed.
bruh no .. u should like a religious fk saying that.. all humans good and bad have their humanity PERIOD... the shit u just said is no better then religious fk heads talking about "save" and "unsaved" sinners vs non sinners... and ur statements implies that YOU or whoever u got that idea form is the GATE KEEPER and or AUTORITY of who has and doesn't have their humanity.. i wonder if hitchens would roll his eyes at ur comment...?! hmmm
“There are those who live that deserve to die. And those who die that deserve life. It is not for us to choose!” Said Gandalf Greyhame. Or something to that effect.
Gandalf actually said something a little more profound: "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement."
A giant amongst us. The void he left will never be filled. The coherence and beauty of his arguments so skillfully garnished by evidence and facts was something to behold every time he spoke .
@Mmapara Pilusa I don't understand statements like this. First of all, he clearly could debate as a lot of religious debaters have even stated. Why would anyone ask him onto the news or to public debates if the man couldn't debate? Secondly, to simply say anyone with a different opinion than you has a low IQ is idiotic. Ironically, I can now call you a low IQ person.
Yes, he really helped me to make up my own mind. Just the very thought of the innocent being murdered by the state is so dreadful it should keep us all up at night and I would never have even considered the actual murderer getting off without punishment before he said it. Such wonderful clear thinking
I am a quiet patriotic man, not jingoistic in any way. However, when I hear Hitch, Martin Amis, Salman Rushdie and Dawkins speak and consume their texts alongside the work of Hawkins it makes me proud to be a simple English man from a small island.
This man was a force to be reckon with in any sort of debate or rational enterprise. I have never seen him once being put to shame in an open debate... a favor which Hitchens did not return to his opponents. Such a prodigious mind, a cultural titan of our times. I bow down to his wit, intelligence but also for his life time of struggle for promoting human rights, human enlightenment and emancipation from the oppression of man, which is governing our lives and our society.
There was a very strange feature in this case, strange because of its extremely rare occurrence. This man had once been brought to the scaffold in company with several others, and had had the sentence of death by shooting passed upon him for some political crime. Twenty minutes later he had been reprieved and some other punishment substituted; but the interval between the two sentences, twenty minutes, or at least a quarter of an hour, had been passed in the certainty that within a few minutes he must die. I was very anxious to hear him speak of his impressions during that dreadful time, and I several times inquired of him as to what he thought and felt. He remembered everything with the most accurate and extraordinary distinctness, and declared that he would never forget a single iota of the experience. ‘About twenty paces from the scaffold, where he had stood to hear the sentence, were three posts, fixed in the ground, to which to fasten the criminals (of whom there were several). The first three criminals were taken to the posts, dressed in long white tunics, with white caps drawn over their faces, so that they could not see the rifles pointed at them. Then a group of soldiers took their stand opposite to each post. My friend was the eighth on the list, and therefore he would have been among the third lot to go up. A priest went about among them with a cross: and there was about five minutes of time left for him to live. ‘He said that those five minutes seemed to him to be a most interminable period, an enormous wealth of time; he seemed to be living, in these minutes, so many lives that there was no need as yet to think of that last moment, so that he made several arrangements, dividing up the time into portions-one for saying farewell to his companions, two minutes for that; then a couple more for thinking over his own life and career and all about himself; and another minute for a last look around. He remembered having divided his time like this quite well. While saying good- bye to his friends he recollected asking one of them some very usual everyday question, and being much interested in the answer. Then having bade farewell, he embarked upon those two minutes which he had allotted to looking into himself; he knew beforehand what he was going to think about. He wished to put it to himself as quickly and clearly as possible, that here was he, a living, thinking man, and that in three minutes he would be nobody; or if somebody or something, then what and where? He thought he would decide this question once for all in these last three minutes. A little way off there stood a church, and its gilded spire glittered in the sun. He remembered staring stubbornly at this spire, and at the rays of light sparkling from it. He could not tear his eyes from these rays of light; he got the idea that these rays were his new nature, and that in three minutes he would become one of them, amalgamated somehow with them. ‘The repugnance to what must ensue almost immediately, and the uncertainty, were dreadful, he said; but worst of all was the idea, ‘What should I do if I were not to die now? What if I were to return to life again? What an eternity of days, and all mine! How I should grudge and count up every minute of it, so as to waste not a single instant!’ He said that this thought weighed so upon him and became such a terrible burden upon his brain that he could not bear it, and wished they would shoot him quickly and have done with it.’
not true, you are a Christopher, as I am a Christopher as are many! its not what you think, but how you think! there are more and more of us thinking, at minimum, in the correct way, which certainly is progress, of a sort 🤗
Human sacrifice is defined as a ritual killing a human as an offering to a deity. Not quite the same as killing a human for committing a heinous crime.
@@transcendentstudios6819 If, like Hitchens, you don't believe deities exist, then "justice" shares significant traits with deities in that both are metaphysical figments. Justice isn't an observable thing in nature, it's not a force like acceration, has no substance; it's a man-made idea. What's more people will regard justice as something that needs to be "served", as if the concept had the sentience to demand appeasement, much like a god (of course, it's really the believers that demand the satisfaction). If serving the supposed demands of unseen abstract category entails the killing of a person, you've got yourself a possible sacrifice, especially if the act leads to a catharsis among the believers Let me emphasize again that this is an atheistic view (one which I believe underlies Hitchens' argument), where believers in universals outside of observable nature are the real driving force. The concepts of God or justice (in its abstract or allegorized/anthropomorphized form, i.e. Iustitia) are surrogates through which adherents articulate THEIR demands. Killing to appease a god's demands and killing to appease justice's demands follow the same underlying dynamic. What Hitchens is pointing out, I think, is that the adherents of most faiths have long considered killing someone irrelevant to meeting their god(s) conditions, largely due to the idea that these deities are supposed to be unknowable, but somehow people would continue to kill to meet equally unknowable (because equally existent outside of observable nature) conditions of "justice". Hitchens' analogy really hides a complex set of factors attached to the issue overall, but ultimately it's about "justice" not being an external "thing" but a concensus and capital punishment providing fals relief to onlookers at the expense of an irreversible punishment often inflicted based on insufficient evidence or--as pointed out in this video--the ulterior motives of public stakeholders.
@@samlandsteiner6237 Where did you get this from? I would really like to read more. I had the same objection as Transcendent Studios however this is a very interesting point of view.
@@laurentcardinal2745 These are my own thoughts regarding the content of the video, but the idea that God is made in man's image and really is whatever serves the conscious and unconscious needs of his followers is circulates within atheistic discussions (and atheistic content on CZcams). Likewise, I'd consider it common knowledge that anthropomorphing abstract and hard-to-understand concepts (justice, death) into allegories (Iustitia, the Grim Reaper) is "an innate tendency of human psychology" (Wikipedia article on Anthropomorphism; referencing Mathew Hudson's 7 Laws of Magical Thinking). I'd venture to guess that it has something to do with making the unfamiliar familiar and what's more familiar to us than we are. If you then realize how many ancient deities used to be specialized personifications of concepts (war, death, wisdom, etc.) and had wills of their own, you can see how the attribution of human-like will to non-sentient, abstract phenomena is an impulse that might creep into even secular thought. And once you treat something as though it had a will of its own, you will in some form or antheer cater to that "will". The best example I can give here is how the early United States had Manifest Destiny, which was attributed to the entire country as though it was the country that wanted to expand and not a majority of its people and/or its elites (also: google Manifest Destiny and the first image will be of west-bound Columbia, a personification of the US).
@@samlandsteiner6237 I just want to say, as someone who studies physics, acceleration is not a force. Sorry but I had to, haha! I've long been rather unsure what to think of the death penalty. Personally, I feel it's one of the worst things a human can do. To me, I always worry that somehow these people (be it rapists or murderers) might see the light of day and have the opportunity to take yet another life. Now, if every single murderer just got life in prison I don't see how there could be an argument for the death penalty. And thank you for making his use of the word, from your point of view, a lot more clear to me. I wasn't quite on board with it but it now makes a lot more sense. Also, something that can't be understated is the way (as Christopher touches on) that the death penalty, throughout history, has been used to silence and oppress.
It always baffles me a bit when people say we need the death penalty because 'imagine having your wife killed and the murderer doesn't get punished with death!' Well how about this? Imagine being wrongly sentenced to death. Imagine sitting in that chair or getting the injection or whatever and knowing you have to face whatever's on the other side, without knowing if people will ever know the truth. Knowing that if they ever do, they can't apologise, they can't get you back. Imagine having to watch your brother die and then later getting money as compensation when they find the real killer, and that's all you get for his death. I'd rather know that this is not possible and that killers rot in jail for the rest of their life instead of accepting a few outliers. Those numbers are real lives
I imagine if I were wrongly sentenced to death, I would rather sit in that chair, or get that injection instead of being in prison for the rest of my,what would now be, miserable life.
I agree with Hitch as usual. My own reason for being against capital punishment however is far simpler: for those who REALLY deserve it, death is too easy. And by not ending a life, you allow a possibility for an innocent person to live, if indeed it turned out they falsely accused
think about this: if punishment for murder is torture and you’re wrongly convicted for murder. you would escape death penalty but you’d be tortured. so, how do you deal with this problem? abolishing death penalty won’t stop this.
I normally agree with Christopher on most subjects. But the most heinous and hideous criminals being executed for an hour is usually far less pain than they inflicted on their victims. I don't feel bad for those people who had 'botched' executions. Can an execution be botched if we take their life in the end anyway?
@@jacklathey7201 Then their attorney should be thrown in with them. If you are innocent and your attorney and a jury found you guilty, then I feel bad you have that much incompetence around you.
Hitchens seems to suggest that worst part of capital punishment is not the punishment itself but that politicians use executions as a way to gain popularity and power.
I wish he was still here to comment on how the UK government have handled Covid-19. The public inquiry that is going to happen after all this is going to turn over some very, very nasty stones.
@@jbmuggins8815 We should've quarantined the elderly and sick but carried on as usual. Not worth sinking the economy for a virus with a 1.3% mortality rate.
@@terrybunch7313 That's not how it works. E.g., you cough in store and touch a packet. A store worker touches that packet, rubs their eyes. They care for their elderly mother. They're asymptomatic so have no idea they've even got it. Someone dies, and they have unknowingly spread it around. Life is also much more important than money.
Does the person who posted this video still have the original, and can the audio be extracted and replaced? If so, I would be happy to clean it using my RX software and send it back without the annoying digital noise? Let me know, and thank you!
Yes, I have it. Just listened to it and I see what you mean. That would be great if you could clean up the audio. Would you like me to email it to you?
@farenheit041 / You don't get it. A psycho is born, grows up, has a wife and kids then goes on a rampage. Scenario 1 - he gets put down; Scenario 2: he gets in prison for life (still cannot reproduce). His kids are not killed with him, the gene is passed on.
What a wonderfully eloquent speaker he was, IF you have not read any of the books and essays that he has shone his amazingly clear light upon I would respectfully and wholeheartedly recommend them. Incredible and passionate argument from this great man, he always finds just the right words to pry open even the stony heart, I know I will be thinking of that man and his never to be enjoyed "pecan pie" for some time now
This makes me happy. Once again hitchens nails it. You need to get involved and Hitchens is dead, Dawkins is old, so new faces are begun to raise- but you can’t replace this man. Bertrand Russell did warn us. Sagan also so why people don’t listen is a tragedy
I've always been a bit squeamish about the death penalty of only because I have seen how terribly investigations are conducted. The law wants the crime punished but it doesn't matter if its the perpetrator or not. As long as SOMEONE gets punished, the law is satisfied.
AljaVast Sorry man. You’re right. I was a little mad last night. I had just spent the entire day going over news reports on both sides of American politics (fact checking and correcting). I have a particularly short fuse when it comes to incorrect speech that could potentially alter someone’s opinions if they take it out of context.
6:25 That line "or at least: a society in recovery from racism" really strikes me as a great way to describe the insideous and deep-seated nature of racism in America. Overall a great set of points.
Travis Tankersley I started writing more or less the same before i read you comment. I’d also add that not caring about spelling and therefore what people will think of it is exactly the opposite of narcissism. But pointing it out and convieniently (don’t even try to correct that mat) drawing attention to your immense knowlege and innate grammatical rigor could be seen as a narcissistic mechanism, a way of satisfying your need for admiration. Is that narcissistic?
I haven't witnessed a single incident of racism against Black people ever. I'm sure it exists but not systemically. Hitchens unfortunately takes the extremes and makes it the rule not the exception. He should be chastised for it not celebrated.
In America, some States have the death penalty for murder and others don’t. The murder rate in States that have the death penalty is higher than in the States that don’t. So much for deterrence.
I think the deterrence is in my opinion secondary to the punishment. Prisons should first be about punishment's. If the punishment's is severe enough,( and I mean severe) then it will act as a deterrent. Personally I am not bothered if it is no deterrent, I want to know that very bad people are having a very bad time.
... but if death does not deter certain people from committing (albeit the worst) crime then, surely, neither will having a terrible time in prison. Murder “appears” to be in the nature of certain people.
It's not designed to be a deterrent. It may have once been, but not now. Its the same reason as you would 'put to sleep' (humanely and not execute) a dangerous out of control animal like a dog.
KMFDM57 Please explain more. The lynching of Emmit Till is sickening. I imagine his family was extremely distraught over his death and the very disrespectful manner his life was taken. Fine looking young man Emmit was. Sometimes killing someone like the racist perpetrators of a crime this is too good for them. They should not have gotten away with it. They should have rotted in a hot sweltering prison till there last breath thinking about what they had done. On the other hand it would have been nice to tie them to the bumper of 2 cars pulling them slowly apart. Painful but too short. Again, when dead, as also in the case of Emmit, the only ones who suffer are those left behind.
Zaid Marwan Zaid you never know who you are actually talking to on the internet. Using a title such as “dumbass” to certain people would get you an instant very painful response. In some neighborhoods immediately shot. You sir are not very wise with your words. Also, I do not bring religion into any debate. Everyone’s religion is the right one and all the others are wrong. Because of this any religion I could cite or reference to would be found invalid due to some others religious beliefs.
KMFDM57: I had no input on America’s legacy. Personally I’m not into all this statue stuff that’s going on. Never gave any attention to what ever kind of statue was wherever. Against them no, for them no. Totally neutral. If someone want a Emmit Till statue displayed I’m all for it. Each to their own. If it helps to move forward it’s all the better. All this shooting of people by law enforcement is sickening. I too have suffered at the hands of law enforcement. I was beaten when I was 15 or 16. 2 cracked ribs. Had my scalp laid open by a flash. Numerous other atrocities just as bad I’m not going to take the time to list. Retaliatory conduct, even verbally, wouldn’t do me any good. My grievances have fell upon def ears such that it has wasted so much of my time I couldn’t move on in life and be happy. Have to figure out another strategy. I know one thing, I would not stand idle to an injustice such as what was done to Emmit Till. How does one get justice? I would like to know. I could use some. I spent 14 years in prison for something that never took place, the crime never existed nor was it committed by anyone. I suspect most do not know about Emmit Till. How does one get justice for Emmit and his family? Make some suffer that had absolutely no connection to it? I think not. What would that do other than to create another injustice. It is a dilemma. What does a person do? Also, for me the death penalty and knowing how at fault this criminal justice system is I cannot be for it. Too many have been railroaded in this country. I believe the innocent have been executed (a calmer form of lynching).
“The Death penalty reveals a totalitarian relationship between the State and the Citizen”. That is a pretty good argument for abolition in a democracy.
Once a state decides that certain people do not deserve to live, where does it stop? Even the most rabid supporters of the death penalty would argue that it's morally acceptable to execute murderers, but repugnant to gas Jews. But in both cases, a state has decided that these people are enemies of the State and deserve to die. So where do you draw the line? Let's draw up a list of what's a capital crime in various countries around the world at the moment and you tell me what's justifiable - Murder Drug trafficking Rape Child molestation Blasphemy Apostasy Adultery (usually only inflicted on women) Homosexuality Armed robbery Illegal possession of firearms Treason Official corruption (lots of US politicians would die for this!) Bribery (both giving and taking) Espionage Anti Government activities (got me here!) Sabotage This is not an exhaustive list, but I'm sure that you get the gist of it.
I don't support the death penalty, but find it ironic the suffering of the condemned is a point of conversation when they gave no quarter to their victims. Live by the sword...
@@2159ianmilne uh no, merely pointing out the hypocrisy of attempting to use potential suffering to invalidate the punishment, when they had zero issue inflicting the same upon their victims. Another proverb for you, 'having your cake and eating it'.
I Laser. The proverb pretty much translates as - if you live by violence, then you should expect to die by violence. So, um, yeah, that is a contradiction if you state you don’t believe in the death penalty.
Far too many people can’t separate the acknowledgement that some people do deserve to die, and advocacy for the state’s right to determine life and death.
@Baphomet the Sabbatic Goat the idea of imprisonment conflict with stripping the right for freedom, i.e. very limited long-lived incarceration, I would rather to be put to death than be immured for the rest of my life. Yet, taking a soul is not the furthest a murderer can get, cause after their release, a percentage of them, take another soul and so on. In mass shooting, "let him rot in jail" yet inhumane, but to ease the case of ongoing suffering, an individual taking the lives of others should be stopped to end.
@Baphomet the Sabbatic Goat I guess we'll agree to disagree, however, I only support death penalty on a crime that involve intentional murder in whatever form it takes. Just being specific.
What is the moral difference between a government deciding that a group of people (ie isis) are behaving and conducting themselves in way that deserves hostile military intervention. And a state government deciding more or less the same about an individual.
To take your example, Isis poses a threat that must be nullified to protect the state, and this can only be practically done through hostile military intervention. By contrast, a murderer who is in prison presents no further threat and so the same reasoning cannot be used to justify their killing. This is, of course, not to say that *all* hostile military interventions by Western powers (or indeed any power) have been justified...
@Uncle Ho Hence the final sentence: "This is, of course, not to say that all hostile military interventions by Western powers (or indeed any power) have been justified..."
@@RonWylie-gk5lc But the USA started out as a bunch of British colonies if I have my history straight and Christopher never repudiated his British citizenship, he merely earned the American one to it
Reminds me of the joke about Death or Bunga! Three guys got stranded on an island. Two of the three were wimps and the other was a tough, strong guy. One day, they met a tribe. The tribe chief told them that they could either have Death or Bunga-bung. He asked the first wimp: Death or Bunga-bunga? The wimp replied: Well, I want to live so I guess Bunga-bunga. He got ass raped. The Chief asked the second wimp: Death or Bunga-bunga? He replied: I don't want to die, so Bunga-bunga. He got ass raped. Then the Chief asked the tough guy: Death or Bunga-bunga? He replied: I don't want to get ass raped so I'll take Death! Everyone in the tribe then chants: Oooooooo! He choose Death! Death! Death by Bunga-bunga!!!
So if some maniac broken to your home and was about to rape torture and murder a family member, you would not "impose the death penalty" on this monster if you had a chance? No? So the murderer then goes through the court system, is found guilty but you would still not want him sentenced to death for his crime? Perfectly fine with you if he lived out his life in prison with three meals a day probably television, radio, books, recreation, etc.?
The point of prison isn't to punish the guilty, but rather to protect the innocent. How you feel about a culprit and what you think should be done with him is irrelevant. What matters is that he's kept from hurting other people ever again. Prison pretty much does that, so going anywhere beyond that is not justice anymore, but mere vengeance.
@@stipe9k there is no punitive element to prisons? What on earth are you talking about? The idea of a punishment as a deterrent is pretty much accepted by the entire planet.
@@stipe9k the point of punishment is that if you commit a crime, you must suffer a consequence. Without punishment, people would be able to do literally whatever they want with impunity. Knowledge that there is this (potential) negative consequence to an action society has deemed unacceptable means that people are far less likely to undertake such an action.
@@stipe9k the point of punishment is to discourage the wrong doer,,,, in the case of murderers, the ONLY punishment should be execution, they must never have the opportunity to kill again
Unless the state can guarantee only the guilty are executed, the state runs the inherent risk of committing murder; if it is willing to do that, it loses the moral high ground to judge and punish.
@@darwinkilledgod- If that's the level of your ESP, don't give up your day job. Some innocents have been kidnapped for decades behind bars, but at least they weren't murdered by the state, so the hope remains of them being vindicated and released. The state regularly makes too many mistakes to risk making any of them permanent. Many think that miscarriages of justice with regard to the death penalty are fine... so long as they happen to someone else. Schedule an appointment for lethal injection for you and suddenly the practice would be tragic and barbaric... and others like yourself on CZcams and elsewhere simply wouldn't care.
@@Malt454 You can't give someone their life back after 30 years of false imprisonment. That is also nonreversable. It's also not kidnapping if the system makes a mistake. I wouldn't be fine being falsely executed. I'd also not be okay having my wife's rapist acquitted, but that isn't an argument for getting rid of jury trials. All errors must be balanced.
@@darwinkilledgod ..... Really? You are willing to put up "being murdered" on the same level as "being locked up"? Holy shit, bro... You need a flashlight? You seem to have lost your morality. As long as you are alive there's a chance of freedom and to get something out of your life - not that it's in any way ok to lock an innocent person up or that this time can be repaid, but atleast the person is alive. Being ok with some innocent people getting murdered by the sate is fucked up beyond anything I can argue against. Holy shit.
Bouncepsycho BPsy Except one of the main arguments of those against the death penalty is that life imprisonment is far worse a punishment than receiving the death penalty. By this logic, losing 30 years of your life due to false imprisonment would be worse than receiving the death penalty. Just look at the people who were released after decades of false imprisonment, they are practically suicidal and completely dehumanized. I’d argue death would be more compassionate than living in that mental hell for the rest of your short life after getting out.
That's right. No one is "against foreign wars", per se, unless they're a pacifist. I'm sure Hitch thought that some foreign entanglements were justified, while others were not, as we all do.
anjoelsallas close but no cigar, firing squads are simultaneously overkill and inefficient, again focused more on being less gruesome to watch than it is being quick and painless. Life and pain are both dependent upon the brain. Beheading is no better because it disconnects the brain from the body but as I understand it the brain is still at least for a moment capable of registering that it is no longer connected to a body, which sounds pretty horrible for the person being executed. A shotgun to the forehead is what is called for. It is one of the more difficult forms of death to watch let alone perform, it is also indisputably instantaneous and painless death, there isn’t a brain left to be capable of processing any pain.
BoxierAcorn844 those people who put infants in ovens or pimp out their children or torture elderly or disabled people for amusement and the like do not deserve to live and do not warrant a drain on tax payer money. They should just be killed.
For every person that has the intelligence, vocabulary and curiosity to follow his arguments, there are a thousand who do not, and their votes count equally.
Damn, mind if I keep this quote with me? It makes me feel... better about my natural interest in difficult social and political studies. Reminds me its a noble pursuit, not one made from ego, and a need to be right, although I feel both statements are some what true.
Agreed, just slightly less equally than ours :) But in honesty I do find it to be a moral quandary - whether an entirely ignorant opinion should hold the same intrinsic value as an informed one? I’m leaning towards “everyone has the right to hold their opinions but not everyone has the right to have their opinions respected”
@@ScepticGinger89 Well as an English guy I get British humour pretty well and I think you would have to do mental gymnastics to call that irony! We do admittedly sometimes have a somewhat dark sense of humour, but I think in this case he was just illinformed about the facts. After all this was a debate and one of his main arguments was that the horrific nature of capital punishment renders it morally impermissable, so it would be against his own interests to understate how gruesome it actually can be.
@@simongleaden2864 there are several definitions for "fulsome." And although yours is one of them that is certainly not what he meant. You need to understand context.
@@robertpotter7940 Ah, we have a man of _"certainty"_ among us! Let us all make way for that rare and splendid creature: a CZcams commenter of certainty!
I think a lot of views on the death penalty are based on emotion and subjective opinion rather than facts. If there was any evidence that the death penalty reduced crime rates then there would be a rational argument to be had. The fact that in the US, states that do not have the death penalty have on average lower violent crime rates speaks volumes. Here in Europe where capital punishment is banned violent crime rates are far lower than in the US. It seems to me that the death penalty has no rational reason for existing. The only "rational" reason is that it MAY save the taxpayer money in the long run. If that is the only justification then surely you could apply the same reasoning to other groups in society that cost the taxpayer money such as the elderly. Its certainly not the sort of society I'd want to live in.
THE DEATH PENALTY IS NOT A DETERRENT!!!!! It may have once been used for that but not these days. Just like all the billions and billions of dogs and other animals that have humanely been put to sleep because they've attacked someone, deemed a menace to society, so should we be able to do the same to our own species. Jo Bloggs humanely put to sleep for his heinous crime deemed a menace to society reads better and more true than Jo Bloggs executed by electric chair for his heinous crime....... bla bla bla.
@@ThePlim62 Your analogie to putting down animals has some merit until you consider we put down animals for all sorts of reasons. Whether it be due to old age, the owner not being able to afford treatment a lack of economic value (such as veal calves) and not being able to find a new home for an abandoned animal. I'm sure we could find humans that could be put down for any of the same reasons, especially in the US. And then of course we have the problem that in the US at least the death penalty actually costs more than imprisoning people. It just seems however you look at it the death penalty is more about emotion than rationality.
@@Vberg Also the comparison with dogs holds no merit. The only reason for putting it down would be safety, as it would be very difficult to condition all dogs to change their behaviour. There is no sense of justice when a dog gets put down, or a sense of fear so other dogs won't bite someone. There is no blame to a dog that he bit someone, animals hold no responsibility for their actions. You can't blame a lion for killing an antilope, that is within their system. Just as our system does not revolve around the idea of survival of the fittest and ethics and morality are taken into account.
Linda Gray I'm not opposed to the death penalty. In fact I think it should be used for the people that there is no doubt of guilt. I also agree that life should mean the rest of your life.
Richard Kranium you can never be sure of guilt though. Even a signed confession is not proof so the problem of potentially killing an innocent person will always exist
Richard Kranium how often do they have all that evidence? Very Uncommon. Plus 4% of people sentenced to death in the us were later exonerated. And there’s always the possibility of tampered evidence.
anjoelsallas It isn't as uncommon as you would think. People are stupid, they video their crimes or one of their buddies do. They leave their DNA and brag about their crimes. My only hope is that I have people like you on my jury if I ever kill someone. As a parent of a victim of a crime that was recorded, and left DNA I have no doubts about the stupidity of people or whether one can be sure of a persons guilt. I'm sure there are cases of uncertainty, but I know for sure there are rock solid cases where there isn't any doubt.
This is a rare occasion on which I respectfully disagree with Hitch. There are, from time to time, hideous monsters living among us who have no respect for the lives of others, and commit unspeakable acts of violence against innocents. As such, they do not deserve to live among civilized human beings!
@@razvanvaleanu3971 --- Well, thankfully we haven't. What you call barbaric, I call the best attempt we have for some sense of justice. Of course, there is no such thing as true justice, with regard to murder, since an innocent victim did not deserve to die, but the murderer surely does. Unfortunately, many states have embraced your passive, soft touch approach to violent crime over the last several decades, and that is exactly what has gotten us to where we are today. Too many violent people have become emboldened by the fact that they can take the lives of others without any fear of losing of their own life. Consider the most recent school shooting in Colorado. Did the perpetrators take their own lives when they were cornered by law enforcement? No. Why not? Because THEY wanted to live. We see this happen in most of these cases. If these school shooters were faced with an automatic death penalty, they would likely reconsider going on a killing rampage. That is the goal we should be seeking, not some ill-fated nirvana, that is never going to exist!
Lonewolf Then again, I would much rather get the death penalty than spend the rest of my life in prison. That is to say, the death penalty can be a let off. Life imprisonment with a chance of self redemption sounds fair to me.
@@hossamgebeily --- That's easy to say until the moment of truth arrives. The desire to live is instinctive, so you might find that your attitude changes completely when actually faced with that dilemma. And, as I mentioned previously, we often see clear evidence that most of those who murder others do not want to die themselves. That's exactly why the death penalty serves as a good deterrent in many cases. "Life imprisonment with a chance of self redemption sounds fair to me." Seriously? You're concerned about fairness and a chance of self redemption for some uncivilized animal who brutally murders an innocent person? Why don't you tell me exactly what chance they gave their victims! Why don't you tell me how fair it was to the victims and their families for some piece of human garbage to decide that their lives weren't important!
Lonewolf I get what you’re saying. But, maybe I should have said, id rather commit suicide than spend the rest of my life in prison. Maybe that makes a lot more sense. I’m not sure you would disagree with that statement. If you dont, then the death penalty would not be any different. As for redemption. I think we know very little about why people commit evil crimes. Serial killers for example. Maybe they really do have a mental illness. Maybe it is genetic? If it is, then i think it would be immoral to put these people to death. Of course, murder is bad for society/civilization. My question is, is the death penalty the solution? Again, maybe these people have a mental illness that we don’t yet understand? What if they were born that way? The same argument used for homosexuality, may also be used for serial killers. I admit, I am only speculating. But that’s the point, as long as there is speculation, the death penalty becomes a problem.
Hitchens often made really good points. This is however one of the points i disagree with. The "deeply lobotomized" man he referred to were so lobotomized by his own hand in a suicide attempt. Before this he had shot and killed a person at a restaurant because his friend didn't have the money to pay the cover charge and they wouldn't let him in. Then later he shot the police officer he said he would surrender to in back of the head when he had turned away. He was a two time murderer and i have a hard time feeling sorry for him.
Maybe. However, at the time of his execution/sacrifice he was unable to comprehend his “punishment”. Regardless of how or why he was “lobotomized”, I think that Mr. Hitchens point stands.
@@doctorshell7118 He was fully aware when he did the deed. Should people then have the option to be executed or lobotomized? Where is justice for the families of the victim? Should they have to accept that minutes after killing an innocent man he became unable to receive the punishment that the law had in store for him?
TheGame Yet the man that was executed was not at all "fully aware", quite the contrary. As to your other question - what about justice for the family - how is someone lobotomizing himself not enough to quench the family's thirst for blood? Because when you ask for someone's execution you're no longer talking about justice, but about revenge.
@@ssjcosty I honestly think it's quite sickening that you think of the families as the ones having "thirst for blood" when it is the killer who killed in cold blood on 2 occations against people who could not defend themselves. Justice and revenge can sometimes be the same thing. If justice means that someone has to have the same done to him that he did onto others, then that might also fit as revenge. I can honestly say that if someone killed a loved one for no reason other than apparently having no regard for anyone else then i would absolutely want revenge. Let's not try to make it sound like revenge is something evil when, for a lot of people, it's a natural desire. As for the degree to which you could claim that a lobotomization could serve as a punishment. We just don't know enough about it. The history of lobotomy is filled with bad experiments and bad data. I work with mentally handicaped adults and some of those are old enough to where they have had the procedure done to them. However they were already mentally handicapped and the lobotomy was a way to get them to be calmer and less violent. The history says that it was done to people who lived normal lives and then became increasingly violent and then after a lobotomy they became calm and well balanced individuals who could get back to working as pilots and doctors. However this history was written by those who wanted to carry on performing these procedures. So a thing i can't tell is what his level of function is after and what he remembers. If someone, let's say, raped my daughter and then a few minutes later had a seizure where he had forgotten all that had happened i would not care. That man still needs to be punished. I don't care if he claims that "that isn't something that he would ever do" and that he just doesn't understand how he could have done it. If there is proof that he did it, i don't care about what happened after. He did the deed and must face the fitting punishment.
@@The77Game Right, and I absolutely find it sickening that you would soberly advocate for revenge by capital punishment, and you would call that justice. So we each find each other's positions sickening, now where does this leave us? > "If someone, let's say, raped my daughter and then a few minutes later had a seizure where he had forgotten all that had happened i would not care. That man still needs to be punished." And I would care. I would hope that the justice system would try to protect society from this person, and if that means removing this person from society (life in prison, or in a sanatorium) then so be it. But in doing so, the state now has the responsibility to care for this man's life and well-being. And yes, that also means protecting this man, and any other citizens who have committed crimes, from the potential wrath and bloodlust of the people they harmed, as understandable and natural as that may be.
@@bowser515 I was deeply saddened about hearing his passing. Ever since I returned to the Church, I must have seen all his debates. I largely agree with many of his views on organized religion, and you may be surprised to discover the Gospels and New Testament do as well. I think that deep down he was a believer in Christ. In one interview towards the end he starts to choke up and refers to "the Almighty". The world truly lost a valuable asset, may he rest in peace.
I don't advocate the death penalty as a deterrent to crime. I advocate the death penalty because some individuals are too dangerous for society, cannot be rehabilitated, would otherwise be a burden. I also think that somewhere along the way, the idea that prison is supposed to be a punishment was forgotten. And I think that rather than being tried by a jury of peers, I think the jury should be comprised by a panel of experts who have access to nothing but the relevant facts. They don't need names or any other identifying information. Make an independent decision on the pertinent facts only. Then, compile the results, and render the verdict accordingly.
@Elision 1) there is a _reason_ why the death penalty is more expensive; and it has nothing to do with the death penalty itself. It has to do with the average of more than twenty years an individual is on death row awaiting the sentence to be carried our by the state. www.statista.com/statistics/199026/average-time-between-sentencing-and-execution-of-inmates-on-death-row-in-the-us/#:~:text=In%202017%2C%20an%20average%20of,passed%20between%20sentencing%20and%20execution. 2) This simply isn't true. www.crimemuseum.org/crime-library/famous-prisons-incarceration/history-of-imprisonment/ 3) This is an assertion. What can you provide to support it? 4) By "relevant facts," I would include anything that isn't personally identifying. The age, creed, disabilities, economic status, ethniticity, fame, gender, marital status, nationality, political persuasion, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc, etc are not relevant factors. Yet, we have seen time and again how there are used in both the legal system and the court of public opinion to judge others. Thus, by suggestion is to remove those factors from the equation entirely. The members of the panel would never see the accused or any of the witnesses. They wouldn't know any of their identities. They would instead be provided with dossiers wherein the prosecution and the defense make their respective cases, the witness testimonies in the form of depositions, and so on. Then, it's no longer a question of which side "performed" better, or whether or not someone "looks" guilty or not, or an issue of discrimination. Furthermore, by having a panel of experts, it opens the possibility of such an expert noticing a key detail and asking the right question(s) that a layperson might miss. For clarification, I am not suggesting that the death penalty be used lightly. However, I think that those who are found guilty of serial killings, mass murder/shootings, or are fanatics, are poor candidates for rehabilitation; they are too dangerous for the general public; and if the wait time were reduced, it would be more cost-effective to just carry out the execution.
unfortunately, the justice system is not concerned with justice......criminal is a label given to someone convicted of breaking laws that are made by the white, middle-aged, privileged elite of society & they are imposed with no interest of the masses. o your research.
Uhhh, I don't think you wanna be using _that_ abbreviation. I know you meant "capital punishment," but if the "P" stands for "porn," then the "C" stands for ...
@Jazzkeyboardist1 Not a part of the conversation. Does the Iraq war in any way change what's being said here? If no, why even bring it up? If you think it is... well, build a case or gtfo.
@Jazzkeyboardist1 And here you are on another video. Why do you seek out videos of a man who disagree with? You don't seem to be persuading anyone else of your positions.
@Jazzkeyboardist1 Didn't you listen to the end? Hitchens has no issue with the state ordering you to kill (foreigners presumably), just not to die. So I imagine for Hitchens, Killing innocent Iraqi's = unfortunate collateral damage Iraq war ran by imperialist neo-cons = a democratic and just state imperative Killing of a guilty citizen for sufficiently heinous crime by a democratic elected government and justice system = human sacrifice by evil absolutists Unintentional killing of an innocent person by same system = proof of moral degradation I know I'm confused.
Read the crimes, all the crimes, of those on death row in the U.S. After you are done imagine those crimes happening to someone you love. Let us know if you change your mind - again.
@@transcendentstudios6819 Fair enough. I understand your disagreement with Hitchens' choice of words. In fact, I'm inclined to agree with you, but I suspect that Hitchens was fully aware of the implications of his choice. I presume that his intention was to imply that capital punishment is no less barbaric and foolish than ritualistic sacrifice.
@@transcendentstudios6819 he was offering the concept of the State as a deity. Which, to some, it certainly is. I am somewhat surprised you didn't get it.
We won't support the death sentence, but we will support taking up arms to launch wars which will knowing, and consciously cause the deaths of innocent people. This is were it breaks down, most people who want the death sentence are talking about when there is nearly perfect certainty and when the crime is so horrific that the criminal in question can never be free.
Regardless of where you stand on the moral question of the death penalty itself, Hitch makes it pretty clear that the state has abused this power (and will continue to do so, if allowed). And with the advent of DNA and the numerous DNA-based exonerations of death row inmates, it’s simply a fact that many innocent people have been executed by the state.
@@peterellis2969 Prospectively, it should. But you’re missing the point. Setting aside the fact of wrongful convictions where no DNA is available, “certainty“ of a person’s guilt in no way meets Hitch’s objection to the Death Penalty.
And yet it does not refute my point, he's arguing about the states power over life and death. One could actually argue that giving freedom to people that have committed murder can reoffend once released. And sometimes do unfortunately. Is the state giving murders another chance to live freely, or another chance to re-offend? When people commit murder on a mass scale, so more specific now, often there is no chance of freedom or rehabilitation. They become a burden on the rest of the society. The take up prison space that could be used for people that have a chance of Rehabilitation. Instead we keep these people in cages. So we can act moralistic about how we rose above such things as execution. Something that was denied to their victims. Without consideration that you will also be denying closure for the victims families, and also the permanent reminder of the pain of their loss. Again remind yourself, we give a pass to wars where bombs are guaranteed to kill innocent people. Which Hitchens has supported, knowingly. I bet if weighed in on the number of civilians casualties of say Iraq. Compared to the number of miscarriages of justice in the USA for death penalties over the last 100 years. That number is going to look pretty damn small.
@@peterellis2969 Even if only one factually innocent person were executed by the state (or zero persons, for that matter), that would not meet Hitch’s objection. On Hitch’s support of the Iraq war, that is irrelevant to his argument against the death penalty. You can assert that declaring war on Iraq was an abuse of state power, but no one would argue that the state shouldn’t have that power in the fist place. On your other points, I agree that the probability of recidivism or rehabilitation goes to zero when the state carries out an execution.
I'm a little surprised that he didn't mention the financial aspect, i.e. poor people more likely to receive the death penalty than folks with adequate financial resources who can hire competent attorneys who can negotiate prison sentences vs. death (or the next level, the wealthy, who can afford to be cleared in many cases----and certainly never executed.) Texas is famous for poor defendants with incompetent counsel, getting railroaded by ambitious DAs.
Hello algorithm buddies.
So unfortunate this man has exited this society already.
How does the term “algorithm” apply in any sense of the word to the conversation?
@@harolddavis7139 The video is getting suggested to people by the youtube algorithm.
Dragonflite hi 👋☺️🤣
@@harolddavis7139 bro
Hello to you as well.
Christopher..if only you knew how much you would be missed. Humanity needs you now more than ever.
He's nothing but an arrogant well spoken dumbass ràcist fuck. He have no moral imo whatsoever
@@zaidmarwan4977 Lol
I've been finding so much comfort in listening to him recently.
@@zaidmarwan4977 He's arrogant. He's well spoken. Very true.
But I'd love some examples of what you're claiming. I haven't seen him ever be a dumbass, but there are disagreements I have with some of his stances. Obviously, that doesn't mean he's unintelligent simply based off differing opinions. And when has he been racist? I have yet to stumble upon that, but admittedly, I haven't seen everything Christopher Hitchens.
@@zaidmarwan4977 but more loveable than you
Am I the only one that pauses to look up words he uses and learns something new every time? Not just the words, but the eloquent, subtlety with which he uses them.
We miss you, Christopher.
I agree he is both erudite and eloquent and agree that justice in the USA is at times barbaric but he let himself down over his support for Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq
Clinton, although charismatic, is clearly a terrible human being
@@anthonyparkinson5544 Needs more 5 dollar words and purple prose.
😂😂😂😂 Every so often he tosses-in some abstruse verbal rarity that befuddles us regular folk. I absolutely love it. He was just gone WAAYY too soon. What a jewel.
Reframing capital punishment as “human sacrifice” is quite an effective tool.
Just don't use it for abortion. See how that works?
Guilty of my own hypocrisy and keenly aware that my Savior was a victim of (unjust) capital punishment, I grew up and decided that (as much as I might like it personally) the death penalty is wrong and America should cease and desist with it.
Far better punishment to let the guilty suffer internally for decades while also allowing the fairly rare case of the wrongly convicted to be discovered and corrected.
For many years I was both "pro-life" and "pro-death penalty" though I admitted to myself my own inconsistency/hypocrisy.
@@NVRAMboi pro-life / pro-death penalty hypocrisy? So an innocent baby and savage murderer or rapist are the same thing? Any person that kills an innocent or rapes is not a human and should be put down.
Hmm, effective in misframing it
@@makokx7063 Thou Shalt Not Kill.
Parse that at your own peril.
@@NVRAMboi I suspect there are quite a lot of people in certain parts of the US who consider themselves anti-abortion and pro-death penalty. George Carlin had a skit about how these people would fight to the death for your right to exist as a foetus, but once you’re actually born you’re on your own!
Conversely, I must admit I also suspect most people I know in real life would probably say the opposite.
Simply elegant. Christopher you are missed but not forgotten.
Omg no, all this time I have thought he’s alive.... awkward and RIP Hitchens
Deep Sea Falcin he died of cancer unfortunately😔
Fuck him to thé end of time
Zaid Marwan may ”allah” judge you for those words, you uttter moron.
@@zaidmarwan4977 awww bless... Poor thing
We know that approx 4% of death row inmates are innocent. I, for one, cannot abide this injustice that is the death penalty. For any sane, reasonable person to accept this state-sanctioned murder, shame on you. So glad to be Australian.
Apparently you never had someone you love brutally murdered and dismembered in front of you have you?
@@ironnads7975 Wow, what a terrible non-sequitur. The brutality of some crimes has nothing to do with innocent people dying and languishing on death rows. If you're unable to reconcile that your political views lead to the deaths of hundreds of innocent people, then shame on you; it should make you uncomfortable. Have some humanity (ironically, something you obviously wish to see in others, but can't produce it in yourself).
@@skullsaintdead I agree with you....but, I’m a hypocrite, I’ll be honest. If someone hurt one of my family members, I’d want revenge. Not justice...revenge. BUT, I’d have to be 100% certain that the person was guilty. I don’t like the death penalty. I know it’s murdered many innocent people. My hypocrisy means that I’d soon be gunning for their heads if it was one of mine. It’s a strange way to feel about it. Let’s not kid ourselves, most people aren’t looking for justice to be served...it’s cold, hard, REVENGE.
@@ironnads7975 You think it's OK for someone you love to be killed for a crime even though they are innocent?
@@pommiebears Indeed, its good that you have the insight to recognise you're motivated by revenge. Many people feel this way: to wish ill upon those who do you & your loved ones harm. But, as you've stated, we can never know with absolute certainty that someone is guilty. And imagine supporting the death penalty against a man who killed your wife or daughter and post-execution, discovering the case was flimsy, the police had blinders on for the suspect, evidence exonerating him wasn't submitted and most disturbingly, a series of eerily similar rapes and murders have continued even after the condemned man was jailed. Imagine the guilt you'd feel for condemning an innocent man to death just so you could feel avenged.
These are the last words of Colin Campbell Ross, before the gallows, sentenced to death for the 1921 Melbourne rape and murder of a 12 year old girl: "I am now face to face with my Maker, and I swear by Almighty God that I am an innocent man. I never saw the child. I never committed the crime, and I don't know who did. I never confessed to anyone. I ask God to forgive those who have sworn my life away, and I pray God to have mercy on my poor darling mother, and my family."
Of course, he did not commit the crime. The police had blinders on for Colin, despite how cooperative he was, and the public wanted someone to blame. More disturbingly, Melbourne Gaol was experimenting with a new hanging technique. His neck did not break and he struggled for minutes, convulsing. They never used that technique again.
In 2008, he became the first person in Australia to be posthumously exonerated. I can barely live with the notion our nation executed this innocent man and I was born 70 years after his death. Resist the desire for revenge.
No matter where you fall on this argument, everyone should listen to this! What a great orator!
I have come to disagree but he makes more than valid points.
@@chalinofalcone871 no dùmbass. His intelectuàl hypnotic vocabulary mâke him look smart but hé ain't
@@zaidmarwan4977 He was 12 years old he was way smarter than you.
@@fvhaudsilhvdfs You're the *fucking idiot*
@@kingsman428 stfu hitch bitch
It sounds like someone’s making tea in the background
Sorry, that was me. I’ll be quiet.
DudeRyanDude shut the fuck up
@@fanwee5048 wow..SUCH anger..you a virgin?😂😂😂
His mastery of the English language resembles Jimi Hendrix's mastery of the Fender Stratocaster.
Well said!!!
@@DIOULASSO lol, same user
*THIS MESSAGE WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY FENDER*
Cringey, sickly reverence.
Jimi? No need to lower him like that. He’s a pure Shawn Lane!
Who's boiling the kettle in the background?
That buzzing may be the electric chair been charged up...
@@captur69 eww
That's for people to prepare tea as they listen to Hitch.
How dare that man ask Christopher Hitchens to stop talking. An act against humanity that!
Fuck Hitchens hé néed to ne shut
Zaid Marwan if you have a point to make then please express it in a form we can all understand.
@Michael Salter stupid .nah bro I understand to the point of not being able to crrectcrrectly typing to communicate with çhimps descendants such as you.
@@zaidmarwan4977 You have issues son, you should start dealing with them yourself.
His wish was granted tho.
Don’t know why I got this in my recommended, but I’m not complaining
I have been passionately opposed to the death penalty all my adult life - I could never have expressed it as intelligently and articulately as this.
You are sorely missed Mr Hitchens.
@Jcorb precisely... You can almost see the Marxist and humanitarian side of Hitchens here and it is impossible to square it with the later character who vociferously and relentlessly advocated for a war that turned a country of 26 million people upside down.
@@BashirAhmad-yx6df it isnt impossible. listen to his reasoning for why he advocated it and he is the same as always. after the war was such an awful blunder he maintained that what he said at the time was accurate. he never said the war was a success. he advocated the removal of WMDs, he didnt advocate war itself.
@@sollybrown8217 I agree with you solly, I just couldn't put it into the fantastic words you just did.
Yeah, that's because you're a straight-up d_mb-f__k... and you PROVE it APTLY by idolizing a guy who FLAT OUT LIED BY OMISSION, something as a lifelong Hitch fan he abhorrently loathed in others, YET HE DID IT HERE, and in many other places.
NEVER. I repeat NEVER have heroes or gods, YOU'LL ALWAYS LLOK LIKE AN A-HOLE and/or be disappointed.
Hitch lied his arse off about the entire thing, and you're too f'n brainless to actually take 2 minutes to research the FACTS about Rickie & what he did and how he WAS ABSOLUTELY NOT "mentally retarded"...
rather he was of sound mind until he killed & permanently maimed multiple innocent people for insanely benign reasons, then when he agreed would turn himself in after running from the cops THEN MURDERED THE NEGOTIATOR...
THEN shot himself in the head, thus lobotomizing himself in the process.
So, he WAS NOT mentally handicapped prior to all of that, he DID THAT WILLFULLY AND HAPPILY.
THAT'S why he was executed. And while I stand against the DP in most instances, there are some who deserve it. ABSOLUTELY.
Grow up you abject clown, how is it that an adult like you can sit here4 and type ANYTHING seriously-regarding being articulate without first having the mental aptitude to do the due diligence that a 2nd grader does in writing a one page paper about how to put a skateboard together.
FFS, you're PATHETIC! INSANELY & ABSOLUTELY! UGH!
Christopher Hitchens was one of the most eloquent orators of all time.
Josef H. VERY fair point.
@@bornkinggamer3347 The comment I was replying to has been deleted and I don't remember what it was about
@@bornkinggamer3347 No the author must have deleted it and when I found out (thanks to you), I did the same with my reply..
So was hitler. :/
He practiced with the mouth a lot
Excellent point that executing an innocent person also means that the real killer for sure is getting away with it. That would not be the case if the innocent just got a prison sentence. That argument alone should be enough for anyone to be against capital punishment.
This is literally the only decent argument ive heard against it.
@sietse de hoop but thats not happening so your Argument is not one
@sietse de hoop It's not possible for laws and judicial processes to be perfect or have all the knowledge, therefor completely closing the case by executing the suspect is wrong. The only exception is if some other greater wrong is being done by letting them live, like too big of a chance they get out or too much resources used on keeping them alive. Nether of these are the case in the west today.
sietse de hoop Then no judge could ever pass the sentence. Absolute knowledge is an illusion, we just don’t have it. A piece of CCTV footage, is that enough? What if I told you someone planted it there, doctored to frame a killer. The problem with the death penalty is it presumes absolute knowledge is present in cases when it is only ever statistical, and taking a man’s life on a gamble just isn’t justified, not matter what the odds.
@@jhyland87 Must be the first argument you've heard against it then.
I love that slight smirk he has as he takes a shot at the National Review's big government hypocrisy right at the end.
Holy fuck that was amazing.
His intelligence compared to mine,I think I am plant life
You need to be smart to appreciate that.
Aw, he just sounds smart because he's English.
@@ronniechilds2002 No.
single-cell here
Ronnie Childs I don’t completely agree, but I do agree that if he didn’t have that entrancing voice then he wouldn’t have been a third as famous and well esteemed.
Another brilliant and eloquently delivered reasoning!
I miss Christopher's voice every day.
There are only a few humans that have earnt their humanity in their lifetime. Hitchens is definitely one of these few.
bruh no .. u should like a religious fk saying that..
all humans good and bad have their humanity PERIOD...
the shit u just said is no better then religious fk heads talking about "save" and "unsaved"
sinners vs non sinners...
and ur statements implies that YOU or whoever u got that idea form is the GATE KEEPER and or AUTORITY of who has and doesn't have their humanity..
i wonder if hitchens would roll his eyes at ur comment...?! hmmm
“There are those who live that deserve to die. And those who die that deserve life. It is not for us to choose!” Said Gandalf Greyhame. Or something to that effect.
Who decides who lives and who dies ?
Gandalf actually said something a little more profound: "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement."
A giant amongst us. The void he left will never be filled. The coherence and beauty of his arguments so skillfully garnished by evidence and facts was something to behold every time he spoke .
I miss his moral clarity in this season of the sewer.
Salute to the Hitch, what an excellent debater. Wish you were here to witness the rise of the innocence project.
@Mmapara Pilusa why do you say so m
@Mmapara Pilusa I don't understand statements like this. First of all, he clearly could debate as a lot of religious debaters have even stated. Why would anyone ask him onto the news or to public debates if the man couldn't debate?
Secondly, to simply say anyone with a different opinion than you has a low IQ is idiotic. Ironically, I can now call you a low IQ person.
@@smoofoperator ANYONE who ever says Christopher has a low IQ is not worth your time arguing with my friend.
What a wonderfully savage indictment of, as our hero says, human sacrifice.
I was one year old when this debate happened. And now its like I haven't missed the debate 😍
Beauty of present day technology
His argument changed my mind.
Well, then...welcome to the light. If Government doesn't want us killing each other, it shouldn't kill us. Simple point, really.
Well done.
Mine too. Capital punishment is inherently lazy, a cowardly and authoritarian avoidance of the difficult questions posed by society.
Yes, he really helped me to make up my own mind. Just the very thought of the innocent being murdered by the state is so dreadful it should keep us all up at night and I would never have even considered the actual murderer getting off without punishment before he said it.
Such wonderful clear thinking
I can’t say the same.
I am a quiet patriotic man, not jingoistic in any way. However, when I hear Hitch, Martin Amis, Salman Rushdie and Dawkins speak and consume their texts alongside the work of Hawkins it makes me proud to be a simple English man from a small island.
I see 'George Carlin - Death Penalty' is set as the next video to auto play
Perfect
This man was a force to be reckon with in any sort of debate or rational enterprise. I have never seen him once being put to shame in an open debate... a favor which Hitchens did not return to his opponents. Such a prodigious mind, a cultural titan of our times. I bow down to his wit, intelligence but also for his life time of struggle for promoting human rights, human enlightenment and emancipation from the oppression of man, which is governing our lives and our society.
My admiration, for, the man, gets, ever stronger.
There was a very strange feature in this case, strange because of its extremely rare occurrence. This man had once been brought to the scaffold in company with several others, and had had the sentence of death by shooting passed upon him for some political crime. Twenty minutes later he had been reprieved and some other punishment substituted; but the interval between the two sentences, twenty minutes, or at least a quarter of an hour, had been passed in the certainty that within a few minutes he must die. I was very anxious to hear him speak of his impressions during that dreadful time, and I several times inquired of him as to what he thought and felt. He remembered everything with the most accurate and extraordinary distinctness, and declared that he would never forget a single iota of the experience. ‘About twenty paces from the scaffold, where he had stood to hear the sentence, were three posts, fixed in the ground, to which to fasten the criminals (of whom there were several). The first three criminals were taken to the posts, dressed in long white tunics, with white caps drawn over their faces, so that they could not see the rifles pointed at them. Then a group of soldiers took their stand opposite to each post. My friend was the eighth on the list, and therefore he would have been among the third lot to go up. A priest went about among them with a cross: and there was about five minutes of time left for him to live. ‘He said that those five minutes seemed to him to be a most interminable period, an enormous wealth of time; he seemed to be living, in these minutes, so many lives that there was no need as yet to think of that last moment, so that he made several arrangements, dividing up the time into portions-one for saying farewell to his companions, two minutes for that; then a couple more for thinking over his own life and career and all about himself; and another minute for a last look around. He remembered having divided his time like this quite well. While saying good- bye to his friends he recollected asking one of them some very usual everyday question, and being much interested in the answer. Then having bade farewell, he embarked upon those two minutes which he had allotted to looking into himself; he knew beforehand what he was going to think about. He wished to put it to himself as quickly and clearly as possible, that here was he, a living, thinking man, and that in three minutes he would be nobody; or if somebody or something, then what and where? He thought he would decide this question once
for all in these last three minutes. A little way off there stood a church, and its gilded spire glittered in the sun. He remembered staring stubbornly at this spire, and at the rays of light sparkling from it. He could not tear his eyes from these rays of light; he got the idea that these rays were his new nature, and that in three minutes he would become one of them, amalgamated somehow with them. ‘The repugnance to what must ensue almost immediately, and the uncertainty, were dreadful, he said; but worst of all was the idea, ‘What should I do if I were not to die now? What if I were to return to life again? What an eternity of days, and all mine! How I should grudge and count up every minute of it, so as to waste not a single instant!’ He said that this thought weighed so upon him and became such a terrible burden upon his brain that he could not bear it, and wished they would shoot him quickly and have done with it.’
Hitchens should be a part of our Education system ! Im Danish 🇩🇰
I could not agree with you more. I,m British {we lost him to America lol}
Christopher is one of a kind. They don't make them like this anymore.
not true, you are a Christopher, as I am a Christopher as are many! its not what you think, but how you think! there are more and more of us thinking, at minimum, in the correct way, which certainly is progress, of a sort 🤗
What a guy. If you understand him, you’re damned to deeply love him.
Good joke
@MiaGusta
Penn and Teller say the same thing about James Randi;
it's not hard to see why. 😊
What a brilliant man. We need more people like him, now more than ever.
U serious
Mmapara Pilusa Not sure why insults are necessary. You could just, you know, have a conversation.
Mmapara Pilusa relax
christopher hitchens "human sacrifice" , genius
Human sacrifice is defined as a ritual killing a human as an offering to a deity. Not quite the same as killing a human for committing a heinous crime.
@@transcendentstudios6819 If, like Hitchens, you don't believe deities exist, then "justice" shares significant traits with deities in that both are metaphysical figments. Justice isn't an observable thing in nature, it's not a force like acceration, has no substance; it's a man-made idea. What's more people will regard justice as something that needs to be "served", as if the concept had the sentience to demand appeasement, much like a god (of course, it's really the believers that demand the satisfaction). If serving the supposed demands of unseen abstract category entails the killing of a person, you've got yourself a possible sacrifice, especially if the act leads to a catharsis among the believers
Let me emphasize again that this is an atheistic view (one which I believe underlies Hitchens' argument), where believers in universals outside of observable nature are the real driving force. The concepts of God or justice (in its abstract or allegorized/anthropomorphized form, i.e. Iustitia) are surrogates through which adherents articulate THEIR demands. Killing to appease a god's demands and killing to appease justice's demands follow the same underlying dynamic.
What Hitchens is pointing out, I think, is that the adherents of most faiths have long considered killing someone irrelevant to meeting their god(s) conditions, largely due to the idea that these deities are supposed to be unknowable, but somehow people would continue to kill to meet equally unknowable (because equally existent outside of observable nature) conditions of "justice". Hitchens' analogy really hides a complex set of factors attached to the issue overall, but ultimately it's about "justice" not being an external "thing" but a concensus and capital punishment providing fals relief to onlookers at the expense of an irreversible punishment often inflicted based on insufficient evidence or--as pointed out in this video--the ulterior motives of public stakeholders.
@@samlandsteiner6237 Where did you get this from? I would really like to read more. I had the same objection as Transcendent Studios however this is a very interesting point of view.
@@laurentcardinal2745 These are my own thoughts regarding the content of the video, but the idea that God is made in man's image and really is whatever serves the conscious and unconscious needs of his followers is circulates within atheistic discussions (and atheistic content on CZcams).
Likewise, I'd consider it common knowledge that anthropomorphing abstract and hard-to-understand concepts (justice, death) into allegories (Iustitia, the Grim Reaper) is "an innate tendency of human psychology" (Wikipedia article on Anthropomorphism; referencing Mathew Hudson's 7 Laws of Magical Thinking). I'd venture to guess that it has something to do with making the unfamiliar familiar and what's more familiar to us than we are. If you then realize how many ancient deities used to be specialized personifications of concepts (war, death, wisdom, etc.) and had wills of their own, you can see how the attribution of human-like will to non-sentient, abstract phenomena is an impulse that might creep into even secular thought.
And once you treat something as though it had a will of its own, you will in some form or antheer cater to that "will". The best example I can give here is how the early United States had Manifest Destiny, which was attributed to the entire country as though it was the country that wanted to expand and not a majority of its people and/or its elites (also: google Manifest Destiny and the first image will be of west-bound Columbia, a personification of the US).
@@samlandsteiner6237 I just want to say, as someone who studies physics, acceleration is not a force. Sorry but I had to, haha!
I've long been rather unsure what to think of the death penalty. Personally, I feel it's one of the worst things a human can do. To me, I always worry that somehow these people (be it rapists or murderers) might see the light of day and have the opportunity to take yet another life. Now, if every single murderer just got life in prison I don't see how there could be an argument for the death penalty.
And thank you for making his use of the word, from your point of view, a lot more clear to me. I wasn't quite on board with it but it now makes a lot more sense.
Also, something that can't be understated is the way (as Christopher touches on) that the death penalty, throughout history, has been used to silence and oppress.
It always baffles me a bit when people say we need the death penalty because 'imagine having your wife killed and the murderer doesn't get punished with death!'
Well how about this? Imagine being wrongly sentenced to death. Imagine sitting in that chair or getting the injection or whatever and knowing you have to face whatever's on the other side, without knowing if people will ever know the truth. Knowing that if they ever do, they can't apologise, they can't get you back.
Imagine having to watch your brother die and then later getting money as compensation when they find the real killer, and that's all you get for his death.
I'd rather know that this is not possible and that killers rot in jail for the rest of their life instead of accepting a few outliers. Those numbers are real lives
That's why it takes about 5 years to go through "just in case". Lol
@@deanmoncaster Do you believe that is enough time for a decision that is irreversible?
@@SandyTheDesertFox hence the lol they got it wrong the first time round, what's another five years?
I imagine if I were wrongly sentenced to death, I would rather sit in that chair, or get that injection instead of being in prison for the rest of my,what would now be, miserable life.
@@albertforletta1498 prison is actually quite cushy and nice in some countries due to human rights
I agree with Hitch as usual. My own reason for being against capital punishment however is far simpler: for those who REALLY deserve it, death is too easy. And by not ending a life, you allow a possibility for an innocent person to live, if indeed it turned out they falsely accused
Yes let the guilty reflect on what they have done for decades, and if they are still unrepentant they are still prisoners never to harm again.
Or give them a chance to escape.
@@patsyroberts3967 If you really believe the average prison inmate thinks for 2 seconds about what they've done then you are truely clueless.
@@alexscott730 haha what else are they going to do with all that time?
think about this:
if punishment for murder is torture and you’re wrongly convicted for murder. you would escape death penalty but you’d be tortured. so, how do you deal with this problem? abolishing death penalty won’t stop this.
Uploader needs to take an EQ to the audio....
When Christopher talks I listen....
I normally agree with Christopher on most subjects. But the most heinous and hideous criminals being executed for an hour is usually far less pain than they inflicted on their victims. I don't feel bad for those people who had 'botched' executions. Can an execution be botched if we take their life in the end anyway?
No mercy for the wicked who showed none to the innocent. Dump gasoline on them and light their cigarette, can't mess that up.
What about those who get executed and then post-humously exonerated?
@@jacklathey7201 Then their attorney should be thrown in with them. If you are innocent and your attorney and a jury found you guilty, then I feel bad you have that much incompetence around you.
Hitchens seems to suggest that worst part of capital punishment is not the punishment itself but that politicians use executions as a way to gain popularity and power.
Same. I even agree with him (to this day) regarding the Iraq War. Some people are just too harmful and evil to be allowed to live.
That was capitol punishment of the other sides position.
Christopher with words is like watching a young Michael Jordan handle a ball or Bird with a sax.
I made the same comment but evoking Jimi Hendrix. So true.
I wish he was still here to comment on how the UK government have handled Covid-19. The public inquiry that is going to happen after all this is going to turn over some very, very nasty stones.
How would you have handled it differently?
@@martydav9475 lockdown being introduced a week earlier would have saved 25,000 lives according to prof neil ferguson
@@jbmuggins8815 We should've quarantined the elderly and sick but carried on as usual. Not worth sinking the economy for a virus with a 1.3% mortality rate.
@@terrybunch7313 That's not how it works. E.g., you cough in store and touch a packet. A store worker touches that packet, rubs their eyes. They care for their elderly mother. They're asymptomatic so have no idea they've even got it. Someone dies, and they have unknowingly spread it around.
Life is also much more important than money.
@@user-gw8ch8nw2d That's the risk you take. Coronavirus only targets a minority of people. Economic collapse affects EVERYONE.
Does the person who posted this video still have the original, and can the audio be extracted and replaced?
If so, I would be happy to clean it using my RX software and send it back without the annoying digital noise?
Let me know, and thank you!
Yes, I have it. Just listened to it and I see what you mean. That would be great if you could clean up the audio. Would you like me to email it to you?
Do you have the whole debate, Sir?
It's easily found here on YT.
Hitch could have been anything in life. What a liberating mind. He has changed my life from the dead. Thank you CZcams.
China, Pakistan, Irag, Iran Saudi Arabia, and THE UNITED STATES
Nicely put.
@farenheit041 / That's a really bad argument. You do not reproduce in prison either. What happened to the pre-execution kids? Exactly ... nothing.
@farenheit041 / You don't get it.
A psycho is born, grows up, has a wife and kids then goes on a rampage. Scenario 1 - he gets put down; Scenario 2: he gets in prison for life (still cannot reproduce).
His kids are not killed with him, the gene is passed on.
@farenheit041 What do you base that on?
Also Japan
What a wonderfully eloquent speaker he was, IF you have not read any of the books and essays that he has shone his amazingly clear light upon I would respectfully and wholeheartedly recommend them. Incredible and passionate argument from this great man, he always finds just the right words
to pry open even the stony heart, I know I will be thinking of that man and his never to be enjoyed "pecan pie" for some time now
This makes me happy. Once again hitchens nails it. You need to get involved and Hitchens is dead, Dawkins is old, so new faces are begun to raise- but you can’t replace this man. Bertrand Russell did warn us. Sagan also so why people don’t listen is a tragedy
Hey, sam harris ,Douglas Murray ain't doing so bad, but your right
@@williamf9992 Hitch would fucking hate Douglas Murray guaranteed
I've always been a bit squeamish about the death penalty of only because I have seen how terribly investigations are conducted. The law wants the crime punished but it doesn't matter if its the perpetrator or not. As long as SOMEONE gets punished, the law is satisfied.
Funny how this recommended right after the first death penalty after 17 years in the US
Ye man you’re super wrong about that. Do some fucking research before you blab on the Internet.
Sullivan Braun yo my mans chill out yes, federal execution. Ain’t necessary to be all disrespectful
AljaVast Sorry man. You’re right. I was a little mad last night. I had just spent the entire day going over news reports on both sides of American politics (fact checking and correcting). I have a particularly short fuse when it comes to incorrect speech that could potentially alter someone’s opinions if they take it out of context.
@@epilepticmouse7715 Understandable. Appreciate the apology.
6:25
That line "or at least: a society in recovery from racism" really strikes me as a great way to describe the insideous and deep-seated nature of racism in America.
Overall a great set of points.
Insidious.
You are using a fantastic device that can do your spelling for you yet you choose not to check.
Is that narcissistic?
matthew howes Drawing attention to one’s self by whining about proper spelling seems to be the more narcissistic choice.
Travis Tankersley I started writing more or less the same before i read you comment. I’d also add that not caring about spelling and therefore what people will think of it is exactly the opposite of narcissism. But pointing it out and convieniently (don’t even try to correct that mat) drawing attention to your immense knowlege and innate grammatical rigor could be seen as a narcissistic mechanism, a way of satisfying your need for admiration.
Is that narcissistic?
alexis Juillard Lol idk is sucking yourself off narcissistic or simply the favorite pastime of a hedonist?
I haven't witnessed a single incident of racism against Black people ever. I'm sure it exists but not systemically. Hitchens unfortunately takes the extremes and makes it the rule not the exception. He should be chastised for it not celebrated.
In America, some States have the death penalty for murder and others don’t. The murder rate in States that have the death penalty is higher than in the States that don’t. So much for deterrence.
I think the deterrence is in my opinion secondary to the punishment. Prisons should first be about punishment's. If the punishment's is severe enough,( and I mean severe) then it will act as a deterrent. Personally I am not bothered if it is no deterrent, I want to know that very bad people are having a very bad time.
... but if death does not deter certain people from committing (albeit the worst) crime then, surely, neither will having a terrible time in prison. Murder “appears” to be in the nature of certain people.
It's not designed to be a deterrent. It may have once been, but not now. Its the same reason as you would 'put to sleep' (humanely and not execute) a dangerous out of control animal like a dog.
Correlation isn't causation. Back to school for you.
When one is executed the only ones that hurt are those left behind. The person executed suffers no more. Is not something backwards here.
KMFDM57 Please explain more. The lynching of Emmit Till is sickening. I imagine his family was extremely distraught over his death and the very disrespectful manner his life was taken. Fine looking young man Emmit was. Sometimes killing someone like the racist perpetrators of a crime this is too good for them. They should not have gotten away with it. They should have rotted in a hot sweltering prison till there last breath thinking about what they had done. On the other hand it would have been nice to tie them to the bumper of 2 cars pulling them slowly apart. Painful but too short. Again, when dead, as also in the case of Emmit, the only ones who suffer are those left behind.
No dumbass. Death ils thé beginning . thé punishment in afterlife is Worst than any thing you coule imagine
Zaid Marwan Zaid you never know who you are actually talking to on the internet. Using a title such as “dumbass” to certain people would get you an instant very painful response. In some neighborhoods immediately shot. You sir are not very wise with your words. Also, I do not bring religion into any debate. Everyone’s religion is the right one and all the others are wrong. Because of this any religion I could cite or reference to would be found invalid due to some others religious beliefs.
KMFDM57: I had no input on America’s legacy. Personally I’m not into all this statue stuff that’s going on. Never gave any attention to what ever kind of statue was wherever. Against them no, for them no. Totally neutral. If someone want a Emmit Till statue displayed I’m all for it. Each to their own. If it helps to move forward it’s all the better. All this shooting of people by law enforcement is sickening. I too have suffered at the hands of law enforcement. I was beaten when I was 15 or 16. 2 cracked ribs. Had my scalp laid open by a flash. Numerous other atrocities just as bad I’m not going to take the time to list. Retaliatory conduct, even verbally, wouldn’t do me any good. My grievances have fell upon def ears such that it has wasted so much of my time I couldn’t move on in life and be happy. Have to figure out another strategy. I know one thing, I would not stand idle to an injustice such as what was done to Emmit Till. How does one get justice? I would like to know. I could use some. I spent 14 years in prison for something that never took place, the crime never existed nor was it committed by anyone. I suspect most do not know about Emmit Till. How does one get justice for Emmit and his family? Make some suffer that had absolutely no connection to it? I think not. What would that do other than to create another injustice. It is a dilemma. What does a person do? Also, for me the death penalty and knowing how at fault this criminal justice system is I cannot be for it. Too many have been railroaded in this country. I believe the innocent have been executed (a calmer form of lynching).
“The Death penalty reveals a totalitarian relationship between the State and the Citizen”. That is a pretty good argument for abolition in a democracy.
In a *liberal democracy anyways.
Once a state decides that certain people do not deserve to live, where does it stop? Even the most rabid supporters of the death penalty would argue that it's morally acceptable to execute murderers, but repugnant to gas Jews. But in both cases, a state has decided that these people are enemies of the State and deserve to die. So where do you draw the line? Let's draw up a list of what's a capital crime in various countries around the world at the moment and you tell me what's justifiable -
Murder
Drug trafficking
Rape
Child molestation
Blasphemy
Apostasy
Adultery (usually only inflicted on women)
Homosexuality
Armed robbery
Illegal possession of firearms
Treason
Official corruption (lots of US politicians would die for this!)
Bribery (both giving and taking)
Espionage
Anti Government activities (got me here!)
Sabotage
This is not an exhaustive list, but I'm sure that you get the gist of it.
Christopher Hitchens was a profound intellect, and spot fucking on.
He was good on some issues but absolutely TERRIBLE on others.
He was too good for this world...
Mmapara Pilusa did he hurt your feelings when he said that your god was fake 😢😢😢
@Mmapara Pilusa You don't? Now I'm really curious as to why you so vehemently deride him?
I don't support the death penalty, but find it ironic the suffering of the condemned is a point of conversation when they gave no quarter to their victims. Live by the sword...
Who said it was about condemning murderers?
“I don’t support the death penalty”
“If you live by the sword (you die by the sword)”
You literally contradicted yourself in two sentences.
@@2159ianmilne uh no, merely pointing out the hypocrisy of attempting to use potential suffering to invalidate the punishment, when they had zero issue inflicting the same upon their victims. Another proverb for you, 'having your cake and eating it'.
@@wonderland1985 huh? By default the term condemned includes murderers. I didn't hear anyone advocating for capital punishment only in certain cases.
I Laser. The proverb pretty much translates as - if you live by violence, then you should expect to die by violence. So, um, yeah, that is a contradiction if you state you don’t believe in the death penalty.
When he said big government Lmao😂... the final nail in the coffin 👏👏
A modern hero, both humble and powerful... Christopher embodies the idea than the pen is mightier than the sword.
The Hitch!!
Far too many people can’t separate the acknowledgement that some people do deserve to die, and advocacy for the state’s right to determine life and death.
By what exact criteria does your state determine who is to die ? And most importantly, is your state infallible ?
Well...America’s 8th constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Frying someone in a chair seems to conflict with this.
@Baphomet the Sabbatic Goat exactly. Nothing is achieved by killing people.
@Baphomet the Sabbatic Goat the idea of imprisonment conflict with stripping the right for freedom, i.e. very limited long-lived incarceration, I would rather to be put to death than be immured for the rest of my life. Yet, taking a soul is not the furthest a murderer can get, cause after their release, a percentage of them, take another soul and so on. In mass shooting, "let him rot in jail" yet inhumane, but to ease the case of ongoing suffering, an individual taking the lives of others should be stopped to end.
@Baphomet the Sabbatic Goat I guess we'll agree to disagree, however, I only support death penalty on a crime that involve intentional murder in whatever form it takes.
Just being specific.
What is the moral difference between a government deciding that a group of people (ie isis) are behaving and conducting themselves in way that deserves hostile military intervention. And a state government deciding more or less the same about an individual.
To take your example, Isis poses a threat that must be nullified to protect the state, and this can only be practically done through hostile military intervention. By contrast, a murderer who is in prison presents no further threat and so the same reasoning cannot be used to justify their killing.
This is, of course, not to say that *all* hostile military interventions by Western powers (or indeed any power) have been justified...
@Uncle Ho Hence the final sentence: "This is, of course, not to say that all hostile military interventions by Western powers (or indeed any power) have been justified..."
Clever guy but I still think that there is no helping the likes of paedophiles and that they should face the death penalty, if PROVEN guilty.
@hawkatro It's the 21st century - DNA solves all
@@donthesitatebegin9283 Obviously when DNA is provided you CANNOT dispute facts.
Christopher is my favourite spiffing brit
We lost him to America sadly
@@RonWylie-gk5lc But the USA started out as a bunch of British colonies if I have my history straight and Christopher never repudiated his British citizenship, he merely earned the American one to it
Does anyone know of any governments that give serious criminals a choice of life in prison or death?
robosickly Well said. And it should be a choice!
Reminds me of the joke about Death or Bunga!
Three guys got stranded on an island. Two of the three were wimps and the other was a tough, strong guy.
One day, they met a tribe. The tribe chief told them that they could either have Death or Bunga-bung. He asked the first wimp: Death or Bunga-bunga? The wimp replied: Well, I want to live so I guess Bunga-bunga. He got ass raped.
The Chief asked the second wimp: Death or Bunga-bunga? He replied: I don't want to die, so Bunga-bunga. He got ass raped.
Then the Chief asked the tough guy: Death or Bunga-bunga? He replied: I don't want to get ass raped so I'll take Death! Everyone in the tribe then chants: Oooooooo! He choose Death! Death! Death by Bunga-bunga!!!
Delicate subject spoken by a true intellectual, I disagree but strongly respect the man
I love hitch, he reminds me of myself.
how so?are you very articulate or do you smoke and drink a lot?
Do you look similar?
So if some maniac broken to your home and was about to rape torture and murder a family member, you would not "impose the death penalty" on this monster if you had a chance? No? So the murderer then goes through the court system, is found guilty but you would still not want him sentenced to death for his crime? Perfectly fine with you if he lived out his life in prison with three meals a day probably television, radio, books, recreation, etc.?
The point of prison isn't to punish the guilty, but rather to protect the innocent. How you feel about a culprit and what you think should be done with him is irrelevant. What matters is that he's kept from hurting other people ever again. Prison pretty much does that, so going anywhere beyond that is not justice anymore, but mere vengeance.
@@stipe9k there is no punitive element to prisons? What on earth are you talking about? The idea of a punishment as a deterrent is pretty much accepted by the entire planet.
@@trenchantinsight What's the point of punishment? It's just getting your frustrations out.
@@stipe9k the point of punishment is that if you commit a crime, you must suffer a consequence. Without punishment, people would be able to do literally whatever they want with impunity. Knowledge that there is this (potential) negative consequence to an action society has deemed unacceptable means that people are far less likely to undertake such an action.
@@stipe9k the point of punishment is to discourage the wrong doer,,,, in the case of murderers, the ONLY punishment should be execution, they must never have the opportunity to kill again
Unless the state can guarantee only the guilty are executed, the state runs the inherent risk of committing murder; if it is willing to do that, it loses the moral high ground to judge and punish.
And so you must think we can't imprison them either because some innocents will be kidnapped.
Congrats, you now must swear off all punishment.
@@darwinkilledgod- If that's the level of your ESP, don't give up your day job. Some innocents have been kidnapped for decades behind bars, but at least they weren't murdered by the state, so the hope remains of them being vindicated and released. The state regularly makes too many mistakes to risk making any of them permanent.
Many think that miscarriages of justice with regard to the death penalty are fine... so long as they happen to someone else. Schedule an appointment for lethal injection for you and suddenly the practice would be tragic and barbaric... and others like yourself on CZcams and elsewhere simply wouldn't care.
@@Malt454 You can't give someone their life back after 30 years of false imprisonment. That is also nonreversable.
It's also not kidnapping if the system makes a mistake.
I wouldn't be fine being falsely executed. I'd also not be okay having my wife's rapist acquitted, but that isn't an argument for getting rid of jury trials.
All errors must be balanced.
@@darwinkilledgod ..... Really? You are willing to put up "being murdered" on the same level as "being locked up"? Holy shit, bro...
You need a flashlight? You seem to have lost your morality.
As long as you are alive there's a chance of freedom and to get something out of your life - not that it's in any way ok to lock an innocent person up or that this time can be repaid, but atleast the person is alive.
Being ok with some innocent people getting murdered by the sate is fucked up beyond anything I can argue against. Holy shit.
Bouncepsycho BPsy
Except one of the main arguments of those against the death penalty is that life imprisonment is far worse a punishment than receiving the death penalty.
By this logic, losing 30 years of your life due to false imprisonment would be worse than receiving the death penalty.
Just look at the people who were released after decades of false imprisonment, they are practically suicidal and completely dehumanized. I’d argue death would be more compassionate than living in that mental hell for the rest of your short life after getting out.
does anyone else hear the awful screeching in the background, like underneath the rest of the sound?
He’s against the death penalty but he’s not against foreign wars?
That's right. No one is "against foreign wars", per se, unless they're a pacifist. I'm sure Hitch thought that some foreign entanglements were justified, while others were not, as we all do.
He was against fascism, and the genocide and ethnic cleansing of Kurds, Tutsis, Kosovars, etc.
We have a fool proof way of inflicting an instant and painless death that we just don’t use because it’s too messy for the people involved.
Firing squad?
anjoelsallas close but no cigar, firing squads are simultaneously overkill and inefficient, again focused more on being less gruesome to watch than it is being quick and painless. Life and pain are both dependent upon the brain. Beheading is no better because it disconnects the brain from the body but as I understand it the brain is still at least for a moment capable of registering that it is no longer connected to a body, which sounds pretty horrible for the person being executed. A shotgun to the forehead is what is called for. It is one of the more difficult forms of death to watch let alone perform, it is also indisputably instantaneous and painless death, there isn’t a brain left to be capable of processing any pain.
Mekel Reen how about we don’t give the state the power to decide life and death. Even if there are crimes deserving of it.
Robert Is a lifetime in a 5x5 foot cell not justice?
BoxierAcorn844 those people who put infants in ovens or pimp out their children or torture elderly or disabled people for amusement and the like do not deserve to live and do not warrant a drain on tax payer money. They should just be killed.
For every person that has the intelligence, vocabulary and curiosity to follow his arguments, there are a thousand who do not, and their votes count equally.
Damn, mind if I keep this quote with me? It makes me feel... better about my natural interest in difficult social and political studies. Reminds me its a noble pursuit, not one made from ego, and a need to be right, although I feel both statements are some what true.
Agreed, just slightly less equally than ours :)
But in honesty I do find it to be a moral quandary - whether an entirely ignorant opinion should hold the same intrinsic value as an informed one?
I’m leaning towards “everyone has the right to hold their opinions but not everyone has the right to have their opinions respected”
A flash of flame behind the mask??? The flames were so large his entire head was on fire according to witnesses...
I think he was being ironic in that typical British way.
@@ScepticGinger89
Well as an English guy I get British humour pretty well and I think you would have to do mental gymnastics to call that irony!
We do admittedly sometimes have a somewhat dark sense of humour, but I think in this case he was just illinformed about the facts. After all this was a debate and one of his main arguments was that the horrific nature of capital punishment renders it morally impermissable, so it would be against his own interests to understate how gruesome it actually can be.
GENIUS
Every time i listen to him speak I feel like a simpleton
_"A fulsome introduction"_ Christopher? I think it was sincere.
Fulsome means "gross by excess". One would hope that such a well-read, educated man would know the meaning of English words.
@@simongleaden2864 Maybe he meant what he said, don't you think so?
@@simongleaden2864 there are several definitions for "fulsome." And although yours is one of them that is certainly not what he meant. You need to understand context.
It is something he often does after he is introduced. It is tongue in cheek but often delivered deadpan.
@@robertpotter7940 Ah, we have a man of _"certainty"_ among us! Let us all make way for that rare and splendid creature: a CZcams commenter of certainty!
Brilliant Man
I miss Christopher Hitchens.
The dislikes are from people who didn't understand his high IQ wording
I think a lot of views on the death penalty are based on emotion and subjective opinion rather than facts. If there was any evidence that the death penalty reduced crime rates then there would be a rational argument to be had. The fact that in the US, states that do not have the death penalty have on average lower violent crime rates speaks volumes. Here in Europe where capital punishment is banned violent crime rates are far lower than in the US. It seems to me that the death penalty has no rational reason for existing. The only "rational" reason is that it MAY save the taxpayer money in the long run. If that is the only justification then surely you could apply the same reasoning to other groups in society that cost the taxpayer money such as the elderly. Its certainly not the sort of society I'd want to live in.
THE DEATH PENALTY IS NOT A DETERRENT!!!!! It may have once been used for that but not these days. Just like all the billions and billions of dogs and other animals that have humanely been put to sleep because they've attacked someone, deemed a menace to society, so should we be able to do the same to our own species. Jo Bloggs humanely put to sleep for his heinous crime deemed a menace to society reads better and more true than Jo Bloggs executed by electric chair for his heinous crime....... bla bla bla.
@@ThePlim62 Your analogie to putting down animals has some merit until you consider we put down animals for all sorts of reasons. Whether it be due to old age, the owner not being able to afford treatment a lack of economic value (such as veal calves) and not being able to find a new home for an abandoned animal. I'm sure we could find humans that could be put down for any of the same reasons, especially in the US. And then of course we have the problem that in the US at least the death penalty actually costs more than imprisoning people. It just seems however you look at it the death penalty is more about emotion than rationality.
@@Vberg Also the comparison with dogs holds no merit. The only reason for putting it down would be safety, as it would be very difficult to condition all dogs to change their behaviour. There is no sense of justice when a dog gets put down, or a sense of fear so other dogs won't bite someone. There is no blame to a dog that he bit someone, animals hold no responsibility for their actions. You can't blame a lion for killing an antilope, that is within their system. Just as our system does not revolve around the idea of survival of the fittest and ethics and morality are taken into account.
Don't know much about Hitch except from a bit of utube...What was his overall position on ethical behaviour?
I think he was in favour of it.
Please share with other people my two brief videos. Thanks!
Well I can't I agree with him all the time.
Linda Gray I'm not opposed to the death penalty. In fact I think it should be used for the people that there is no doubt of guilt. I also agree that life should mean the rest of your life.
Richard Kranium you can never be sure of guilt though. Even a signed confession is not proof so the problem of potentially killing an innocent person will always exist
Marty Procter you most certainly can be certain of guilt if you witnessed it. If that is backed by surveillance footage and DNA. Get real.
Richard Kranium how often do they have all that evidence? Very Uncommon. Plus 4% of people sentenced to death in the us were later exonerated. And there’s always the possibility of tampered evidence.
anjoelsallas It isn't as uncommon as you would think. People are stupid, they video their crimes or one of their buddies do. They leave their DNA and brag about their crimes. My only hope is that I have people like you on my jury if I ever kill someone. As a parent of a victim of a crime that was recorded, and left DNA I have no doubts about the stupidity of people or whether one can be sure of a persons guilt. I'm sure there are cases of uncertainty, but I know for sure there are rock solid cases where there isn't any doubt.
This is a rare occasion on which I respectfully disagree with Hitch. There are, from time to time, hideous monsters living among us who have no respect for the lives of others, and commit unspeakable acts of violence against innocents. As such, they do not deserve to live among civilized human beings!
Nope. It makes sense in a barbaric "eye for an eye" society. I hope the US has passed that point.
@@razvanvaleanu3971 ---
Well, thankfully we haven't. What you call barbaric, I call the best attempt we have for some sense of justice. Of course, there is no such thing as true justice, with regard to murder, since an innocent victim did not deserve to die, but the murderer surely does.
Unfortunately, many states have embraced your passive, soft touch approach to violent crime over the last several decades, and that is exactly what has gotten us to where we are today. Too many violent people have become emboldened by the fact that they can take the lives of others without any fear of losing of their own life.
Consider the most recent school shooting in Colorado. Did the perpetrators take their own lives when they were cornered by law enforcement? No. Why not? Because THEY wanted to live. We see this happen in most of these cases. If these school shooters were faced with an automatic death penalty, they would likely reconsider going on a killing rampage.
That is the goal we should be seeking, not some ill-fated nirvana, that is never going to exist!
Lonewolf Then again, I would much rather get the death penalty than spend the rest of my life in prison. That is to say, the death penalty can be a let off. Life imprisonment with a chance of self redemption sounds fair to me.
@@hossamgebeily ---
That's easy to say until the moment of truth arrives. The desire to live is instinctive, so you might find that your attitude changes completely when actually faced with that dilemma. And, as I mentioned previously, we often see clear evidence that most of those who murder others do not want to die themselves. That's exactly why the death penalty serves as a good deterrent in many cases.
"Life imprisonment with a chance of self redemption sounds fair to me."
Seriously? You're concerned about fairness and a chance of self redemption for some uncivilized animal who brutally murders an innocent person? Why don't you tell me exactly what chance they gave their victims! Why don't you tell me how fair it was to the victims and their families for some piece of human garbage to decide that their lives weren't important!
Lonewolf I get what you’re saying. But, maybe I should have said, id rather commit suicide than spend the rest of my life in prison. Maybe that makes a lot more sense. I’m not sure you would disagree with that statement. If you dont, then the death penalty would not be any different.
As for redemption. I think we know very little about why people commit evil crimes. Serial killers for example. Maybe they really do have a mental illness. Maybe it is genetic? If it is, then i think it would be immoral to put these people to death. Of course, murder is bad for society/civilization. My question is, is the death penalty the solution? Again, maybe these people have a mental illness that we don’t yet understand? What if they were born that way? The same argument used for homosexuality, may also be used for serial killers. I admit, I am only speculating. But that’s the point, as long as there is speculation, the death penalty becomes a problem.
There are fates worse than death and some deserve even worse.
But I want NO MAN to be the arbiter of that.
I would prefer any government that claimed to represent me try to behave at least slightly better than the worst criminals in our society.
Hitchens often made really good points. This is however one of the points i disagree with. The "deeply lobotomized" man he referred to were so lobotomized by his own hand in a suicide attempt. Before this he had shot and killed a person at a restaurant because his friend didn't have the money to pay the cover charge and they wouldn't let him in. Then later he shot the police officer he said he would surrender to in back of the head when he had turned away. He was a two time murderer and i have a hard time feeling sorry for him.
Maybe. However, at the time of his execution/sacrifice he was unable to comprehend his “punishment”. Regardless of how or why he was “lobotomized”, I think that Mr. Hitchens point stands.
@@doctorshell7118 He was fully aware when he did the deed. Should people then have the option to be executed or lobotomized? Where is justice for the families of the victim? Should they have to accept that minutes after killing an innocent man he became unable to receive the punishment that the law had in store for him?
TheGame Yet the man that was executed was not at all "fully aware", quite the contrary. As to your other question - what about justice for the family - how is someone lobotomizing himself not enough to quench the family's thirst for blood? Because when you ask for someone's execution you're no longer talking about justice, but about revenge.
@@ssjcosty I honestly think it's quite sickening that you think of the families as the ones having "thirst for blood" when it is the killer who killed in cold blood on 2 occations against people who could not defend themselves.
Justice and revenge can sometimes be the same thing. If justice means that someone has to have the same done to him that he did onto others, then that might also fit as revenge. I can honestly say that if someone killed a loved one for no reason other than apparently having no regard for anyone else then i would absolutely want revenge. Let's not try to make it sound like revenge is something evil when, for a lot of people, it's a natural desire.
As for the degree to which you could claim that a lobotomization could serve as a punishment. We just don't know enough about it. The history of lobotomy is filled with bad experiments and bad data. I work with mentally handicaped adults and some of those are old enough to where they have had the procedure done to them. However they were already mentally handicapped and the lobotomy was a way to get them to be calmer and less violent. The history says that it was done to people who lived normal lives and then became increasingly violent and then after a lobotomy they became calm and well balanced individuals who could get back to working as pilots and doctors. However this history was written by those who wanted to carry on performing these procedures. So a thing i can't tell is what his level of function is after and what he remembers.
If someone, let's say, raped my daughter and then a few minutes later had a seizure where he had forgotten all that had happened i would not care. That man still needs to be punished. I don't care if he claims that "that isn't something that he would ever do" and that he just doesn't understand how he could have done it. If there is proof that he did it, i don't care about what happened after. He did the deed and must face the fitting punishment.
@@The77Game Right, and I absolutely find it sickening that you would soberly advocate for revenge by capital punishment, and you would call that justice. So we each find each other's positions sickening, now where does this leave us?
> "If someone, let's say, raped my daughter and then a few minutes later had a seizure where he had forgotten all that had happened i would not care. That man still needs to be punished."
And I would care. I would hope that the justice system would try to protect society from this person, and if that means removing this person from society (life in prison, or in a sanatorium) then so be it. But in doing so, the state now has the responsibility to care for this man's life and well-being. And yes, that also means protecting this man, and any other citizens who have committed crimes, from the potential wrath and bloodlust of the people they harmed, as understandable and natural as that may be.
The most Christian "atheist" ever. RIP Chris
He's not that much of a bastard
@@ReegusReever Well said! He would not appreciate being called a Christian. As he's said many times, no do not have to have a religion to be moral.
@Phil C I'm curious as to how you came to that conclusion? I suspect he would have taken that as an insult, and then corrected you calling him Chris.
@@markboard3258 Where do our standards for morality come from? What about our names, yours and mine specifically, where do they come from?
@@bowser515 I was deeply saddened about hearing his passing. Ever since I returned to the Church, I must have seen all his debates. I largely agree with many of his views on organized religion, and you may be surprised to discover the Gospels and New Testament do as well. I think that deep down he was a believer in Christ. In one interview towards the end he starts to choke up and refers to "the Almighty". The world truly lost a valuable asset, may he rest in peace.
I don't advocate the death penalty as a deterrent to crime. I advocate the death penalty because some individuals are too dangerous for society, cannot be rehabilitated, would otherwise be a burden. I also think that somewhere along the way, the idea that prison is supposed to be a punishment was forgotten. And I think that rather than being tried by a jury of peers, I think the jury should be comprised by a panel of experts who have access to nothing but the relevant facts. They don't need names or any other identifying information. Make an independent decision on the pertinent facts only. Then, compile the results, and render the verdict accordingly.
@Elision
1) there is a _reason_ why the death penalty is more expensive; and it has nothing to do with the death penalty itself. It has to do with the average of more than twenty years an individual is on death row awaiting the sentence to be carried our by the state.
www.statista.com/statistics/199026/average-time-between-sentencing-and-execution-of-inmates-on-death-row-in-the-us/#:~:text=In%202017%2C%20an%20average%20of,passed%20between%20sentencing%20and%20execution.
2) This simply isn't true.
www.crimemuseum.org/crime-library/famous-prisons-incarceration/history-of-imprisonment/
3) This is an assertion. What can you provide to support it?
4) By "relevant facts," I would include anything that isn't personally identifying. The age, creed, disabilities, economic status, ethniticity, fame, gender, marital status, nationality, political persuasion, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc, etc are not relevant factors. Yet, we have seen time and again how there are used in both the legal system and the court of public opinion to judge others. Thus, by suggestion is to remove those factors from the equation entirely.
The members of the panel would never see the accused or any of the witnesses. They wouldn't know any of their identities. They would instead be provided with dossiers wherein the prosecution and the defense make their respective cases, the witness testimonies in the form of depositions, and so on. Then, it's no longer a question of which side "performed" better, or whether or not someone "looks" guilty or not, or an issue of discrimination. Furthermore, by having a panel of experts, it opens the possibility of such an expert noticing a key detail and asking the right question(s) that a layperson might miss.
For clarification, I am not suggesting that the death penalty be used lightly. However, I think that those who are found guilty of serial killings, mass murder/shootings, or are fanatics, are poor candidates for rehabilitation; they are too dangerous for the general public; and if the wait time were reduced, it would be more cost-effective to just carry out the execution.
unfortunately, the justice system is not concerned with justice......criminal is a label given to someone convicted of breaking laws that are made by the white, middle-aged, privileged elite of society & they are imposed with no interest of the masses. o your research.
@@dyschromotopia
"...convicted of breaking laws that are made by the white, middle-aged, privileged elite of society."
And...there's the race card.
It takes a bit of higher reasoning to understand why CP is both immoral and irrational.
Uhhh, I don't think you wanna be using _that_ abbreviation. I know you meant "capital punishment," but if the "P" stands for "porn," then the "C" stands for ...
@Jazzkeyboardist1 Not a part of the conversation. Does the Iraq war in any way change what's being said here? If no, why even bring it up? If you think it is... well, build a case or gtfo.
@Jazzkeyboardist1 And here you are on another video. Why do you seek out videos of a man who disagree with? You don't seem to be persuading anyone else of your positions.
@Jazzkeyboardist1 Didn't you listen to the end? Hitchens has no issue with the state ordering you to kill (foreigners presumably), just not to die. So I imagine for Hitchens,
Killing innocent Iraqi's = unfortunate collateral damage
Iraq war ran by imperialist neo-cons = a democratic and just state imperative
Killing of a guilty citizen for sufficiently heinous crime by a democratic elected government and justice system = human sacrifice by evil absolutists
Unintentional killing of an innocent person by same system = proof of moral degradation
I know I'm confused.
I Actually changed my mind on death penalty after watching this
How? I'm a huge Hitchens fan and I've always found his argument here to be lacking...and rambling, of which he's frequently guilty.
Hitchens would have liked to read that (I hope).
@@DJFLDJFL probably means you understood
Read the crimes, all the crimes, of those on death row in the U.S. After you are done imagine those crimes happening to someone you love. Let us know if you change your mind - again.
@@jk1776yt that doesn't change nothing.
Don’t like the phrase “human sacrifice” doesn’t seem to fit here. One of the rare Occasions I disagreed with hitch here
Why not? Is it because of the religious and ritualistic connotations of that phrase?
No sir it’s because the Oxford dictionary definition of human sacrifice is “the ritual killing of a human as a offering to a deity”
@@transcendentstudios6819 Fair enough. I understand your disagreement with Hitchens' choice of words. In fact, I'm inclined to agree with you, but I suspect that Hitchens was fully aware of the implications of his choice. I presume that his intention was to imply that capital punishment is no less barbaric and foolish than ritualistic sacrifice.
Yea. It seems he uses the most grotesque terms to create an image for the case of his arguments like referring to circumcision as genital mutilation
@@transcendentstudios6819 he was offering the concept of the State as a deity. Which, to some, it certainly is. I am somewhat surprised you didn't get it.
We won't support the death sentence, but we will support taking up arms to launch wars which will knowing, and consciously cause the deaths of innocent people. This is were it breaks down, most people who want the death sentence are talking about when there is nearly perfect certainty and when the crime is so horrific that the criminal in question can never be free.
Regardless of where you stand on the moral question of the death penalty itself, Hitch makes it pretty clear that the state has abused this power (and will continue to do so, if allowed). And with the advent of DNA and the numerous DNA-based exonerations of death row inmates, it’s simply a fact that many innocent people have been executed by the state.
With the advent of DNA.. shouldn't that add more certainty?
@@peterellis2969 Prospectively, it should. But you’re missing the point. Setting aside the fact of wrongful convictions where no DNA is available, “certainty“ of a person’s guilt in no way meets Hitch’s objection to the Death Penalty.
And yet it does not refute my point, he's arguing about the states power over life and death. One could actually argue that giving freedom to people that have committed murder can reoffend once released. And sometimes do unfortunately. Is the state giving murders another chance to live freely, or another chance to re-offend? When people commit murder on a mass scale, so more specific now, often there is no chance of freedom or rehabilitation. They become a burden on the rest of the society. The take up prison space that could be used for people that have a chance of Rehabilitation. Instead we keep these people in cages. So we can act moralistic about how we rose above such things as execution. Something that was denied to their victims. Without consideration that you will also be denying closure for the victims families, and also the permanent reminder of the pain of their loss. Again remind yourself, we give a pass to wars where bombs are guaranteed to kill innocent people. Which Hitchens has supported, knowingly. I bet if weighed in on the number of civilians casualties of say Iraq. Compared to the number of miscarriages of justice in the USA for death penalties over the last 100 years. That number is going to look pretty damn small.
@@peterellis2969 Even if only one factually innocent person were executed by the state (or zero persons, for that matter), that would not meet Hitch’s objection. On Hitch’s support of the Iraq war, that is irrelevant to his argument against the death penalty. You can assert that declaring war on Iraq was an abuse of state power, but no one would argue that the state shouldn’t have that power in the fist place. On your other points, I agree that the probability of recidivism or rehabilitation goes to zero when the state carries out an execution.
I'm a little surprised that he didn't mention the financial aspect, i.e. poor people more likely to receive the death penalty than folks with adequate financial resources who can hire competent attorneys who can negotiate prison sentences vs. death (or the next level, the wealthy, who can afford to be cleared in many cases----and certainly never executed.)
Texas is famous for poor defendants with incompetent counsel, getting railroaded by ambitious DAs.
He did at about 8min