The argument against the death penalty used to be (a) that innocent people are judged guilty and that should never be accepted, and (b) the cost of retrials ends up more expensive in the long-term than lifelong prison sentences.

Given how propagandized things have become with academia, I have questions whether (b) is actually true. It used to be something that made sense, but in hindsight who knows what falsifications were made; where as for (a) we have clear and undeniable evidence of the wrongfully convicted.

Liberals push recidivation policies quite a bit. Some of it makes sense, but of course, they can't be entirely taken as being of good faith. Deprivatization of prisons might be a safe-ish topic given the clear conflict of interest, even when balanced against governmental inefficiencies.

End conclusion of this post in response to your flippant comment being used as a spring-board? Thanks, academia, for fucking up all faith, good will, and trust, so we can't have serious conversations due to your willful agenda pushing about idiocy like transgenderism and Burn Loot Murder.