Take another quiz >

Countries With the Most Executions

Name the countries that executed the most people from 2015 to 2018, according to Amnesty International.
Quiz by burntfrost
Rate:
Last updated: April 29, 2019
First submittedApril 29, 2014
Times taken42,296
Rating4.52
4:00
Enter country here:
0
 / 13 guessed
The quiz is paused. You have remaining.
Scoring
You scored / = %
This beats or equals % of test takers also scored 100%
The average score is
Your high score is
Your fastest time is
Keep scrolling down for answers and more stats ...
#
Country
Thousands annually
China
Unknown
North Korea
Unknown
Vietnam
Unknown
Malaysia
> 2,304
Iran
#
Country
> 607
Saudi Arabia
> 487
Pakistan
> 291
Iraq
> 144
Egypt
> 76
Somalia
#
Country
96
United States
29
Singapore
25
Japan
+1
level 78
May 8, 2014
I didn't know Japan and Taiwan commited death penalty.
+1
level 77
May 15, 2014
I thought I guessed Japan... maybe I just thought of it and then decided not to. Got the rest.

If Egypt actually carries out all the death sentences it has recently handed down for Muslim Brotherhood members they're going to rocket to the top of this list in 2014. I think they've had something like 1300 death sentences in the past few months?
+2
level 55
May 15, 2014
If they go through I'll update. :)
+22
level 76
Jun 30, 2014
That's a rather morbid emoticon
+2
level 77
May 2, 2015
Figures for 2014:

Iran: 289+
Afghanistan: 6
Belarus: 3+
China: a lot
Egypt: 15+
Equatorial Guinea: 9
Iraq: 61+
Japan: 3
Jordan: 11
Malaysia: 2+
North Korea: probably a lot
Pakistan: 7
"Palestine": 2+
Saudi Arabia: 90+
Singapore: 2
Somalia: 14+
Sudan: 23+
Taiwan: 5
UAE: 1
USA: 35
Vietnam: 3+
Yemen: 22+

There have been a very large number of death sentences given in Nigeria and Egypt, over 2000, but so far they were not carried out in 2014.
+5
level 77
May 2, 2015
And Syria continues to prefer the use of barrel bombs and snipers over courtrooms and lethal injection, as do many other places.
+5
level 73
Apr 29, 2019
@kolp That's what I was thinking.
And if 1,300+ get executed some JetPunkers will be upset because then they'll have to take a quiz again to get their 5 JetPunk points back.
+1
level 55
Jun 21, 2019
Hmmm. The United States are in "good company". :(
+2
level 69
May 15, 2014
I expected Russia to be high on this list. I was surprised to see that they've completely abolished capital punishment.
+2
level 55
May 15, 2014
If you want to be really surprised, go look up which countries have legalized prostitution!
+6
level 58
May 16, 2014
Sounds like the making of a new quiz!!
+2
level 34
Jan 21, 2015
Any country apart of the ECHR has to abolish the death penalty, hence why belarus is one of the few european countries not part of it.
+4
level 77
Aug 10, 2016
Why bother with the death penalty when it's so much easier to order someone to stick you with a bit of polonium?
+3
level 25
May 15, 2014
Well done 'Murica!
+3
level 77
May 15, 2014
What do you mean? They're in a distant 5th place.
+1
level 78
May 15, 2014
Yeah, China and Iran are the champions. And we don't really know about North Korea. But what about Burma and Syria? I would have thought that they would officially assassinate people.
+10
level 49
May 15, 2014
Don't knock #5, it's better than their rankings in education, happiness, and health care.
+2
level 36
May 15, 2014
@ Arp2600, I was wondering the same thing! @FractalDoom, Sadly, it's true @Quizmeister, Japan...
+2
level 77
May 15, 2014
39 out of a population of 300 million+ seems perfectly reasonable. Syria doesn't "execute" it just wholesale exterminates.
+2
level 83
Jun 3, 2014
I wholeheartedly agree "dunkinggandalf", it is unreasonable that only 39 people were executed in the US last year.
+12
level 72
Jun 18, 2014
Depends how you define 'reason' Kal. There are no empirically justifiable reasons for having the death penalty - it's not a deterrent, it's not cheaper than imprisonment, it's just barbaric. Look at the other countries on the list.
+5
level 77
Jul 9, 2014
Why is it barbaric? Keeping someone confined in a box for 80 years is better? Allowing murderers and pedarests to reenter the community is better? Or letting them live long happy lives regardless of how many innocent lives they shattered? Why is it so important that every single human being on Earth live for as long as absolutely possible? I honestly don't get it. You're giving barbarians a bad name for calling what happens in the US justice system "barbaric."
+3
level 77
Jan 19, 2015
Taiwan and Japan? Very nice places. At least we're not snooty and condescending hypocrites about it.
+2
level 77
May 2, 2015
Also @Wombat, the only reason people can get away with saying that execution is more expensive than life in prison is because of the court costs involved. And that only applies in the United States where those convicted of capital crimes are given decades and ample opportunity to appeal their case at the expense of the tax payer. I am not against this, and I assume you're probably in favor, though I do think things could be done to streamline the judicial process without sacrificing justice, and this would eliminate the extra cost.
+1
level 73
Jul 20, 2016
28 people of 319 million. That's a grand total of 0.000009% of our population. Now I don't agree with the crimes that demand capital punishment in the middle east, but for crimes like serial murder here in the states, I have no problem with the death penalty. Hypothetically as a family member of someone who was murdered I would not be real happy that my relative's live was cut short but their killer is being protected.
+5
level 72
Aug 10, 2016
Exactly Kal, the reason people can get away with saying the death penalty is more expensive than imprisonment is because it is. And the US doesn't allow ample avenues for appeal, it's a bizarre system, enslaved to procedure, not justice. One quick example, public defenders in the US are notoriously inept, but if you're in the mood for some black comedy have a look at Joe Frank Cannon, an attorney so manifestly inadequate that you wouldn't believe it if you saw it in a movie. Hundreds of people accused of murder were 'represented' by Cannon, and hundreds were executed. Were they guilty? Who knows, Cannon was asleep a lot of the time. In the famous case of Burdine v Johnson, Cannon's file on his client was a total of three pages long. A normal file in a capital case would ordinarily run into many thousands of pages. You need to do much more than streamline your system if you're going to make it anywhere near fair enough to make a plausible case for the efficacy of the death penalty.
+1
level 77
Aug 10, 2016
What do you mean by efficacy? Do you not believe that people sentenced to death eventually die? I never argued that the death penalty is a good deterrent etc so what kind of efficaciousness are we talking about?
Imprisoning people for life on false charges is not superior to executing them on false charges. Particularly if we're going to assume that it's so nice in jail that those *not* sentenced to execution get a significantly worse crack at the justice system than those who are. THIS is (the meat of) the argument I'm making. NOT that doing bad things means you deserve to be punished. NOT that the death penalty saves money (though the fact that it doesn't points to one of the problems with the justice system I highlighted above). and NOT that it's effective as a deterrent. I know that what I'm saying is not mainstream and a bit hard to follow but I know you, Wombat, are smart enough to do so. So please read me carefully if you want to respond to something I said.
+3
level 76
Aug 12, 2016
Wombat, there are inept people in every profession - doctors, teachers, plumbers, whatever. Don't take one notable case and brand everyone in the profession with the same brush. Being a public defender is not an easy job. Many are overworked, but if someone does actually get an incompetent one they can file an appeal based on ineffective counsel. (And of course, anyone who loses a case thinks their attorney was inept.)
+3
level 72
Aug 29, 2016
Kalbahamut has commented on this quiz 38 times, including one reply to his own comment, and another 8 comments posted before he gave someone else a chance to respond. An entertaining and passionate defence of killing lawbreakers.
+1
level 77
Sep 12, 2016
Happy to entertain. I don't feel passionately about this issue. I just have thought it through.
+6
level 63
Dec 30, 2016
Not everyone given the death penalty is actually guilty. Avoiding executing innocent people is the biggest reason why the death penalty should be banned.
+1
level 43
Mar 8, 2017
Geez, it seems like the death penalty is a slightly contentious issue. I ain't got no answer, and i don't think the way countries like the USA do it right either, but you could do it a hell of a lot worse. But generally speaking, i think more measures should be taken to punish individuals in some form in such a way that physically prevents them from repeating their crime, rather than just locking them away. Chemical castration from paedophiles and repeat offending rapists doesn't sound that extreme to me. ... Maybe across the board, there should be less capital punishment and more euthanasia? Or at least, if you're gonna go around executed people, let those people who actually want to die do so?
+3
level 57
Oct 24, 2018
@kal - prisons are far from ideal and in some cases they are also barbaric. I don't have an answer to the question of how to reform them. But the answer certainly isn't just kill them. I am perfectly happy for any criminal to reenter "the community" (although I'm not sure what exactly you mean by that) as long as they have served enough punishment to deter others from committing the same crime (there is no evidence that the death penalty is any better than prison as a deterrent) and there have been measures taken to ensure that the offender will not reoffend (this is harder to ensure, but the answer isn't just killing them). I don't think it is necessary to make people not live long and happy lives - that is called revenge and is not the purpose of punishment. It is important that people are granted the right to live for as long as possible because nobody wants to be killed or be denied access to life-saving healthcare.
+1
level 57
Oct 24, 2018
Where this ideal stops is certainly up for debate. A discussion of its logical extreme is seen in Yuval Noah Harari's book Homo Deus. But it isn't that hard to see where the ideal originates.
+3
level 57
Oct 24, 2018
If your main argument is that jail is worse than death, then I am going to have to disagree. Even if it was true I don't think that particularly makes much difference to whether the state should be killing people. Having the death penalty does impact a society, not just the person being executed. I am quite surprised to see someone who doesn't even agree with the idea of nationalism saying that individual nations would be better off killing their own citizens when they break laws (though which laws exactly I don't see stated). Your main argument seems to be that individuals can't reenter the community (presumably one within one nation) and so are worthless. Humans' sole function is not to form part of a society.
+1
level 77
Dec 31, 2018
If you think that I am arguing for revenge, for the killing or indefinite detention of people who are able to safely reenter society, for the death penalty as a deterrent, or for "just" killing anyone.... then you haven't carefully read my arguments because I've actually argued *against* all of those things.

At least you did understand my point about life in prison being a worse punishment than death. And yes, we disagree on this point.

Human beings are defined by their relationships with other people. Philosophically I think it can be said we don't even exist without them. I've argued in the past that there are two different types of morality- individual and societal, that these two moralities are often in direct opposition to each other and that both have a right to defend themselves. There's a huge difference between society and states defined by nationalism, even if most of us currently live in societies dominated by the former.
+1
level 57
Jan 14, 2019
You haven't explicitly argued for these things but some of your arguments seem to revolve around the idea that because these people have "shattered many innocent lives" they should not be allowed to "live long happy lives". I was arguing against that. If you didn't mean what I think I have reasonably interpreted from your Jul 9 2014 post please tell me what it did mean. I am interested in your idea that people are defined through their relationships with other people. Would you say that people who have less social interaction exist less than other people? As somebody who probably has less social interaction than average I would disagree. I can probably agree with your idea of individual versus societal morality a bit more though. From the point of view of society it may not matter what happens to the people who are removed from it (although I would certainly argue that if execution, especially if public, is reported on and made a topic of national interest that is bad for society).
+1
level 77
Apr 30, 2019
That's not my argument and I've never said that so I don't know why you think my arguments "revolve around this." You are probably just conflating my opinions with those of other people you've heard argue for the death penalty. It's my opinion that people on both sides of this debate often make bad arguments.

In my July 9th comment from 5 years ago, I asked four rhetorical questions. I assume you are honing in on the 3rd and saying that my argument revolves around just that one question, when I personally feel it's the least important of the four. But yes I guess it's implying that perhaps we should invest less effort and attention in to prolonging or improving the lives of murderers and terrorists etc than we should invest in making society safe and pleasant for everyone else, but, like I said, this is way waaaay down my list of reasons. My other stronger (so far unrefuted) reasons are much better. And I wasn't even really making an argument I was asking a question.
+1
level 77
Apr 30, 2019
I don't believe in retributive justice. All that being said the comment is five years old and sometimes my views on an issue evolve over the years.
+1
level 73
Jun 20, 2019
Ugh, Homo Deus is a terrible book - full of statements with no logical argument or references to back them up with
+7
level 50
May 15, 2014
I don't see any way in which the death penalty is justifiable. Just saying, America, 5th is nothing to be proud of.
+3
level 77
May 15, 2014
I can think of plenty of people that deserve to be executed but never will be. People these days are way too sensitive about human life, as if people are going to live forever anyway. Especially people who use their country's newfound love for the sanctity of life, hypocritically ignoring the fact that a short time ago those same countries would happily commit massacres all over their global empires and pull people into pieces after being publicly disemboweled and then stick their head on a pike for public display, or worse, as justification for acting morally superior.
+2
level 77
Jul 9, 2014
because they're not in a position to.
+3
level 77
Jan 19, 2015
Oh, that's a relief. Then the rest of the world constantly bitching about the US meddling in their affairs or setting the tone for international politics should stop any day now... and of course they'll also stop complaining whenever the US decides to intervene anywhere (Libya), or when they don't (Syria). Because they're no longer in a position to act unlike the entire rest of the world and so get judged based on every decision and indecision by the gallery of masturbatory spectators and has-been tyrants. good to hear.
+8
level 43
Jan 28, 2016
You don't make sense Kalbahamut.
+1
level 77
May 22, 2016
Makes perfect sense to me. Would you like me to explain something?
+4
level 42
Aug 10, 2016
The problem is plenty of innocent people have been executed, but America only realises it after they've done it. Clearly the justice system isn't perfect so execution should happen.
+1
level 77
Aug 10, 2016
If someone is forced to live through seeing 10, 20, 30, 60 years of their life wasted away in prison where they are deprived of liberty, subject to rape, abuse, whatever... this is worse than killing them. Death does not hurt the person you kill. Once you are dead... I promise you won't give a crap anymore. It only hurts surviving loved ones. But imprisonment is likely worse as the family can't move on. Imprisonment actually harms the individual incarcerated. The death penalty shouldn't be seen as a punishment. Remove our silly and illogical fear of death, and it's not. It should be seen as acknowledging that an individual has no value to, or hope or returning and playing a role in, society. And that there's no point prolonging such a person's life.
In the meantime, yes, please, shine a bright spotlight on all the inadequacies of the justice system. Those need to be addressed. But an imperfect justice system is not a good argument against the death penalty for the reasons above.
+7
level 72
Aug 29, 2016
I'm sorry, but Ryan's statement above is just completely bonkers. To repeat what he said: "An imperfect justice system is not a good argument against the death penalty". That is making excuses for a system that allows for the judicial killing of people for a crime they did not commit. Everyone has the right not to be killed for something they didn't do, and countries that allow judicial killing will always kill a proportion of people who did not do what they were accused of.
+1
level 77
Sep 12, 2016
It's not at all bonkers if you're smart enough to understand the point. How can you be nuts enough to think that I am making excuses for killing people for a crime they didn't commit? THAT is bonkers.

In imperfect justice system is NOT a good argument against the death penalty. YES. That is worth repeating. It may seem counter intuitive. But that's because your intuition is terrible.
I'll try to sum up my many long arguments here. Please try to keep up. If the justice system is bad, this is a good argument for improving the justice system. A person falsely convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment is not a good outcome. Life imprisonment is not better than execution. Taking away the sentence of execution does nothing to fix what's wrong with the justice system, if there is indeed a problem. And in the USA, people sentenced to death actually get BETTER access to justice than anyone else.
+12
level 37
May 15, 2014
Agreed. All human lives have worth, and to take ones live through the death penalty makes you just as bad as the criminal.
+3
level 77
Jul 9, 2014
Disney movie nonsense.
+1
level 77
Jan 19, 2015
Right, gandalf. God, you're nuts. Let's pick one case completely at random. Executions in 2014. Top of the list I see some guy Michael Wilson. Never heard of him before. Look up the case... apparently he and his friends were planning to rob a store. The clerk was worried about it and alerted police. This was something they thought out, completely premeditated, no "passion." Wilson and his friends entered the store, dragged an innocent man into the cooler, bound him, and beat him to death with a baseball bat striking him 54 times as he was pleading for mercy. They had trouble getting the safe open, so one of the robbers put on the victim's uniform and manned the cash register to avoid arousing suspicion, while the victim lay dying in a pool of blood for the duration. The robbers then took their money and went to buy some new Nike tennis shoes which the police found them with when they were apprehended. These people have no right to live. Killing them is justice.
+2
level 77
Jan 19, 2015
Yet according to you, carrying out the perfectly just and deserved sentence against Wilson is worse than what Wilson did to the innocent man in the store.
+1
level 77
Jan 19, 2015
Also one more thing... there was one guy on the list who had 30 years between receiving his death sentence and actually having it carried out. Charming and probably misunderstood "I will beat you to death with a bat for a pair of Nikes" Wilson had 16. During that whole time they are living for free in facilities with libraries, gyms, cable TV, 3 square meals a day, all paid for by the tax payer, and also they have access to the legal system and are able to make multiple appeals to their sentence if they wish, most of them do, which is part of why it can take 30 years to carry out the sentence.

But... yeah... that's more terrible a crime than straight up cold blooded murder.
+5
level 68
Apr 4, 2015
I believe the point of punishment should not be revenge, but rather protection of the society from criminals and helping the offender realize his mistake whenever possible. Justice simply cannot be the reason to kill somebody. A person's behaviour is not only his responsibility, but it is related to the influence of society as a whole. If we were to kill someone for their criminal acts, we might as well kill his family, or maybe his schoolmates, or maybe kill ourselves, for not treating that person as we should have. Or maybe it's just his own evil mind. Maybe. But we can never be sure. We should not judge someone's acts to define his quality as a human being, as if we were gods. We just can't, and if we think we can, we're being arrogant to the extent that we become criminals ourselves.
+1
level 77
Apr 20, 2015
george, that makes sense. But what if all we're doing is acknowledging that a person has no value at all to society, that allowing him to reenter society poses a great danger, and that keeping him locked inside a box forever is neither more just, nor more civilized, nor really any different than ending said person's life in a completely humane way such as lethal injection? No pain, no suffering, no more an act of revenge than a doctor cutting a tumor out of someone's brain is getting revenge against cancer.
+3
level 68
Apr 24, 2015
I see your point there, but would the death penalty really be more humane? I agree it is a physically less damaging course of action for someone to be killed through, say, a lethal injection, than to be imprisoned for life, but what about the emotional toll this takes? If subjecting a person, especially a criminal in a disturbed state of mind, to the certainty of imminent death isn't the most emotionally and mentally destructive experience they could have, then what is? At least life imprisonment gives criminals a chance of rethinking their actions and finding some peace with themselves and other people. Faint though this chance may be, I think it again comes down to our inability to conclusively judge a human being's qualities.
+1
level 77
May 2, 2015
If that's what they're worried about then why go to such pains to prevent prison inmates from committing suicide? People these days just have this weird obsession with keeping everyone alive as long as possible, whether there's good reason to or not.
+5
level 43
Jan 28, 2016
Kalbahamut, beside your "nah, you stupid" worthy arguments that just shows how insecure you are about your ideas, please aknowledge that in California a death sentence cost 10 times more to the state than a life-long sentence. You look way more interesting and accurate on subjects you actually know about.
+1
level 46
Feb 13, 2016
Cedo, justice shouldn't have a price. If you think that Kalbahamut is immoral for believing in the death penalty, then you should DEFINITELY know that not wanting to serve justice because it 'costs too much' is just as bad. Most of those given the death penalty premeditated their attacks, and are given ample time to prove their innocence. If they still can't do it, then isn't the justice system functioning as it should?
+1
level 77
May 22, 2016
Cedo, that is a terrible, inhumane, *barbaric* argument. The ONLY reason that people can say that the death penalty is MORE expensive than life imprisonment is because people on death row have greater access to the appeals process, they go to court more and have more access to lawyers. Their cases are fully vetted and they are given every chance possible to prove their innocence and have their convictions overturned. The increased cost you cite is ALL about court costs. What did you think it was? The price of needles?

So... basically what you are saying is that everyone who is convicted of a crime... lock 'em up and throw away the key!! Because it saves money. Yeah, that's very civilized of you.
+1
level 66
Jun 21, 2016
I'm not really "against" the death penalty when used properly, but if the reason it's more expensive is because of the court costs, that should absolutely be considered a factor. I don't ever want a system in place where people who receive the death penalty don't have the ability to appeal. Those things are in place because it helps make a wrongful conviction less likely, and wrongful convictions should be avoided at all costs. That being said, I think Kal is right that some people place too much importance on everyone living as long as they possibly can, even if that person is a violent criminal.
+1
level 77
Aug 10, 2016
A violent criminal... or an elderly person with a terminal disease who wants to die, or basically a collection of unfeeling cells like a blastocyst, or a braindead vegetable (see Terry Schiavo). Humans in Western civilization have a very perverted sense of the value of life. I think it stems from their own irrational fear of death. Life is not in and of itself valuable. Death is not the worst thing imaginable, or even necessarily objectively bad. This is hard or impossible for most Westerners to wrap their heads around.
+3
level 76
Aug 12, 2016
When it comes to end of life decisions, people need to learn there comes a point when it is no longer prolonging life, but prolonging death. When my time comes I hope my family lets me go with dignity. I'd rather they hang on to fond memories than a frail body.
+2
level 37
Oct 16, 2016
Agree with kalbahamut
+4
level 57
Oct 24, 2018
@kal - you've posted quite a bit here and I might not be able to respond to it all. While it is true that executions happening in the US now are generally less bad than the original murder, I still don't think you are at all right to say that "killing them is justice". No, it is not. It is revenge. On hearing that story emotional responses are triggered that make people angry enough to want those people executed. This is too subjective to be real justice. The fact that these people had to wait a long time to be executed is not a point in your favour. At the very best it has no relevance whatsoever. Lethal injections are not a humane way of killing people, that is a ridiculous and extremely dangerous falsehood. There really is no way of doing it humanely unless the person is already suffering (e.g. from a terminal illness) but more humane methods (counterintuitively) probably include beheading and firing squad.
+2
level 57
Oct 24, 2018
Also death is absolutely not an irrational fear. I challenge you to name one fear that is more rational than the fear of death and justify it in a way that I could not use to justify the fear of death. Of course we fear death. Evolution quickly gets rid of any organism that does not. It is true to say that death is not objectively bad, but this is much more abstract (when applied to the death of humans) than the question of whether governments should kill people it is in charge of. It is clear to me that the answer to that is no.
+1
level 77
Dec 31, 2018
I'm not and never was arguing for revenge. I think I've stated clearly here, multiple times, that I do not believe that the death penalty should be used as punishment against criminals whose crimes were especially bad. (but I forgive you if you missed it, since you're right, there has been a lot said in the comments here)
On the contrary I believe that free will is an illusion and that a punitive criminal justice system does not make any sense. I believe any criminal justice system should be a system that attempts to correct bad behavior, not punish it. But some criminals are irredeemable. Their continued existence will only cause pain to themselves and to others. Since I do not fetishize the prolongation of life, humanely ending these criminals' lives to permanently remove them from the world that their existing in would only cause further suffering is, I believe, the only civilized and humane thing to do.
+1
level 77
Dec 31, 2018
Fear of death is irrational because once you are dead you will feel no pain, you will experience no suffering, it will be exactly as bad as the time before you were born.

Fear of pain, public speaking, imprisonment, etc is all far more rational. These things can and do cause mental anguish in people and that is very unpleasant. Being dead is not unpleasant at all. We fear it, yes, and this fear is probably in our DNA, but that does not make it rational. Any more than cats jumping in panic when they turn around and see a cucumber on the floor behind them is rational. It might be instinctual, natural, normal, common, or understandable - but that doesn't make it rational.
+5
level 57
Jan 14, 2019
I know you say you are not arguing for revenge, but when you say that certain people "deserve" to be executed or that they have no "right" to live, it is difficult to imagine what you are appealing to other than a desire for revenge. I know that you are saying "free will is an illusion" as if that means any specific action should be taken, but to me it is irrelevant whether or not free will is an illusion because even if it wasn't that wouldn't mean I would think retribution was the purpose of punishment. I don't know that there necessarily are any criminals who are irredeemable, and I don't think that it is possible to say whether or not their continued existence will "only" cause pain. I would personally much rather exist than not exist, even if the interactions I had were minimal. Then you said that killing the criminals was the only humane and civilised thing to do. "Civilised" isn't a term that I think really means anything, but I can say that executions as they occur in the USA
+4
level 57
Jan 14, 2019
are not humane. And perhaps more to the point than anything I've said so far, they are not motivated by any of the things you are talking about, or at least the people voting for them are not. They are motivated by a desire for revenge, deterrent and to some extent by the "don't mess with Texas" ideology that amounts to the same thing as the national chauvinism you have criticised as a reason for people to reject the death penalty.
+3
level 57
Jan 14, 2019
As for the thing about death being an irrational fear, I do sort of get what you mean about "rational" meaning something different to what people have evolved to do. But it is difficult at this point to define exactly what is rational. The fear of pain is a good example, as your reason for why it is a rational fear is that it is "very unpleasant". The same could be said of almost anything, including death (the experience of being dead wouldn't be unpleasant because it is nonexistent, but the fact that you won't get to do anything again is for many people unpleasant). Imprisonment is probably also a good example, but public speaking is not because if you do it you soon get used to it and the experience of worrying about it is probably worse than actually just doing it.
+1
level 77
Apr 30, 2019
"when you say that certain people "deserve" to be executed or that they have no "right" to live, it is difficult to imagine what you are appealing to other than a desire for revenge."

If that's true then the problem is with your imagination. You are projecting your own sentiments on me. A cancerous tumor doesn't have a right to grow inside of my body. If it's causing harm to me, I'll get someone to cut it out. I'm not seeking revenge against the tumor. I'm identifying a problem and dealing with it.
+1
level 77
Apr 30, 2019
"I know that you are saying "free will is an illusion" as if that means any specific action should be taken, but to me it is irrelevant

It's extraordinarily relevant. If free will is NOT an illusion, then retributive justice can actually make sense. If people are capable of making choices other than the choices that they make, then it could be argued that they deserve punishment for making bad choices. But if you recognize that people only seem to make choices, and in reality they act the only way that it is possible for them to act, then you can understand that retributive justice makes no sense. In the same way that if a rabid dog is attacking people, you're not angry at the dog, but you may decide to have the dog put down. In the same way that if you are attacked by a bear, you might take precautions against a future attack but you're not angry at the bear. It's just being a bear.
+1
level 77
Apr 30, 2019
There are several different reasons for punishment in criminal justice. Instead of going in to them all here's a link that briefly explains many. I don't believe in retributive justice, though in the American system and in virtually all other justice systems in the world, retributive justice is a major component of the law. I believe the other reasons given are all valid, though.
I don't see how executions in the USA are inhumane and the arguments I've read for why they are not are pretty stupid and desperate.
I agree that many of those people voting for the death penalty believe in retributive justice. It's my opinion that they are ignorant. So what? Many people voting for sending aid to starving orphans do so because they believe that an invisible man in the sky wants them to do kind things for other people. Is that a good reason to not help starving orphans?
+1
level 77
Apr 30, 2019
I've never heard a compelling argument for why to be alive is better than to be dead, or for existence being preferable to non-existence. Every argument I've ever seen on this subject is nonsense; emotional and irrational, based on feelings without reason.
I understand why evolution selects for a fear of death.
I can see why death is considered bad, as it affects the still-living. I can see why societies would outlaw murder, even against people that nobody is going to miss.
And yes if you are alive and conscious it's likely that you would prefer to stay that way, it's in your genetic programming to prefer this. But that doesn't mean you would feel the same way once you are dead.

Humans have evolved to want to remain alive, therefore they want to argue that life is good somehow. Acknowledging this non-sequitur is actually much closer to the center of my argument than any desire to punish wrong-doers.
+1
level 24
May 15, 2014
Where's Pakistan and India?
+6
level 73
May 15, 2014
Roughly between and beneath Iran, Afghanistan, China, Nepal, Bhutan, Burma and Bangladesh.
+2
level 23
Nov 10, 2014
you missed tajikistan
+1
level 47
Jun 20, 2019
Only 4 people have been executed by the Indian government in the 21st century.
+2
level 65
May 15, 2014
This list is misleading. While countries like Japan and the United States give real data and those who are sentenced to death get trials and retrials, a vast majority of countries do not give real data. Communist countries like Cuba and North Korea execute way more people than a majority on the list. Also, in many countries the police shoot first and the citizens are not given a fair trial i.e. Brazil, Venezuela and a majority of Central and South America, The same can be said a many war torn African nations,
+1
level 37
May 15, 2014
Taiwan is quite a surprise.
+1
level 77
Nov 11, 2017
Asians tend not to have the same attitudes about life and death as Americans and Europeans. And it's not for a lack of civilization.
+1
level 75
May 15, 2014
Similar to my quiz; http://www.jetpunk.com/user-quizzes/42254/countries-which-execute
+1
level 29
May 18, 2014
North Korea has never reported to execute prisoners, we only have testimonies of alleged witnesses as proof.
+8
level 55
May 19, 2014
Jong-Un? Is that you?
+1
level 43
Oct 3, 2015
Good One =)
+3
level 34
Aug 11, 2016
Interesting that you are able to type this when you have no internet
+2
level 43
Oct 3, 2015
Can I just ask something... why did you add North Korea if you don't even know how much executions they've had? North Korea might have a secret that there a nice country, and they don't execute people!
+3
level 70
Dec 7, 2015
Wow! You really are 10 years old!
+1
level 58
Jan 9, 2016

O O

____

+2
level 61
Aug 10, 2016
Hahahahahahahaha. This is my favorite comment ever.
+2
level 77
Aug 8, 2018
They're pretending to be a horrible and oppressive police state centered around a personality cult where people routinely die of starvation or in government prison camps because they don't like immigrants. Is that it?
+1
level 61
Jun 20, 2019
I mean, if you want to deter immigration, it's not a bad strategy.
+1
level 45
Feb 13, 2016
WHY JAPAN!!!!!!!!!!! it is an amazing place but whhhhyyyyyyy!
+1
level 77
May 22, 2016
If I had to guess it would be because they don't have the same Christian religious tradition Westerners do teaching them to fetishize prolonging life. Japanese culture is much more accepting of death as something natural; even noble and dignified.
+5
level 57
Oct 24, 2018
It has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity. A knowledge of the history of medicine relating to Medieval Europe should convince you of this. I actually think it comes from the question of how to run a country and/or the world when people realised that Christianity wasn't the way to do it. Doesn't Christianity say that you go to heaven when you die anyway? (as long as you shifted all your original sin onto Jesus by believing in him). If so what is the point in prolonging life? The sanctity of life is basically an example of where a religion has claimed something for its own that it didn't invent. The idea that killing people is bad, or that it a sad when someone dies, has been around far longer than religion.
+1
level 77
Dec 31, 2018
of course it has. But the meme that all life is sacred (no matter what, even to the point of including dangerous psychopathic murderers, elderly people with no quality of life whatsoever, people who *want* to commit suicide but by law are not allowed to, brain dead vegetables like Terry Schiavo, or unthinking globs of cells like fertilized human ovums) is something that has caught on in the Judeo-Christian world, and the defense of these values in that world is almost always dressed up in Christian theology. Therefore, this meme has very much become part of contemporary Christian belief. Of course beliefs and religions both change over time.
+3
level 57
Jan 14, 2019
A lot of arguments that people make if they are Christian are dressed up as Christian theology, particularly if they are about the most basic or most fundamental ideas, as it is quite hard to argue something with somebody who disagrees with all of the steps you used to reach a conclusion. Also lots of ideas that people refer to look like Christian theology even if they can be reasonably defined and be a useful concept without it (an example of this is "free will" - considered to be a God-given ability by Christian theology but also something that can be used as an assumption to base decisions on, even if the universe is algorithmically deterministic). The point is that virtually all of the arguments I think you are referring to can be "translated" (i.e. edited slightly) to produce an atheistic argument that works.
+1
level 77
Apr 30, 2019
So what if they can? That doesn't change the fact that these memes first evolved out of a Judeo-Christian culture and tradition. And that the same memes, in the same form, do not exist in Japan.
+1
level 69
Aug 10, 2016
I expect we'll see the Philippines and Turkey join this list soon. Erdogan's gonna have to do something about all those crowded post-coup prisons and Duterte seems to have a bit of a fetish for killing drug dealers. I also expect we'll see the Egypt figure spike when all the sentences that have been dished out are carried out. Personally I don't particularly like the death penalty and I think the US is keeping rather poor company here. As an anti-crime mechanism it seems pretty ineffective based on any comparison of crime in countries that do and don't use it, so we can assume its primary purpose is not to make society safer, but rather to extract retributive justice. Personally I think satisfying a thirst for revenge is not something the state should be involved in. That said, I can understand the appeal on an emotional level - there are definitely some cases that you read about and think, "The world would be a better place without that person."
+1
level 77
Aug 10, 2016
The Philippines would already be near the top of the list if you count summary executions by police, and Duarte encouraging civilians to practice vigilante justice against drug dealers resulting in hundreds of shootings. Brazil maybe for the same reason. They have way more cop shootings than the US does.
+1
level 77
Aug 10, 2016
The death penalty should not be used as a deterrent, or for vengeance. It should be used when someone has no value to society and cannot be rehabilitated, redeemed, or returned to society without significant threat to other people. Locking someone in a box for the rest of their lives without any chance of escape doesn't make you civilized.
+1
level 65
Aug 10, 2016
where is israel
+1
level 62
Aug 10, 2016
Next to Egypt,
+2
level 49
Aug 10, 2016
Capital punishment has only been used once in Israel, in 1962. It is illegal in Israel today.
+3
level 37
Aug 10, 2016
Funny how every country on this list is either from Asia or Africa... Except for the United States...
+1
level 77
Aug 10, 2016
Not so funny. This is a short list. There are a lot of countries in Asia. There are a lot of countries in Africa. Not so many in the Americas. Europeans have made it social religious canon that the death penalty is evil. This meme has no caught on so well in Asia or Africa, though it's starting to take hold in the United States. Many US states have abolished the death penalty.
+2
level 77
Aug 10, 2016
And incidentally, though this won't convince anyone here to stop acting like they're somehow more enlightened and civilized if that's how they've been acting:
Michigan abolished the death penalty in 1846.
Rhode Island in 1852.
Wisconsin in 1853.
Maine in 1887.
The United States Supreme Court effectively banned it altogether in 1972. Though it was reinstated in some places in 1976.
Belarus still allows the death penalty.
Latvia abolished it in 2012.
The Netherlands (in all its territories) in 2010.
Russia in 2009.
Albania in 2007.
the UK in 2006 (Jersey), or 1998.

If only there were an Olympic medal for fastest mounting of a high horse...
+2
level ∞
Jun 20, 2019
Belgium didn't abolish the death penalty until 1996, those savages.
+1
level 76
Sep 14, 2019
This is a little misleading... Last execution in the UK: 1964 Last execution in the Netherlands: 1952 (military execution for war crimes)/1948(civilian execution for war crimes)/1860 (peacetime) Last execution in Belgium: 1950 (war crimes)/1863 (peacetime) Last execution in Latvia: 1996 Last execution in Albania: 1995 Last execution in Russia: 1996 In fact with the exception of Belarus, the last execution in Europe was in Ukraine in 1997. And when talking about Belgium and the Netherlands, it was abolished in the 19th century and only brought back for war crimes committed in WWII. So yes, it's in recent memory that some of these countries abolished the death penalty, but practically most Western European countries abolished it in the mid twentieth century and former Communist countries in the 1990s.
+1
level 58
Aug 10, 2016
What a country! What great company it keeps on this list.
+5
level 62
Sep 12, 2016
Counting extrajudicial killings, this list would be pretty different.
+2
level 77
Oct 16, 2017
Yes. In the Philippines everyone from suspected addicts to political rivals of those in power are gunned down routinely and unprosecuted as part of their war on drugs, plus there is the summary executions of Muslim separatists in the southern provinces now. In Brazil police kill about 10 people every day.
+1
level 66
Apr 29, 2019
Philippines was also one of my first guesses. In fact, I was so certain it should be here that I typed it a couple of times to make sure I didn't make a typo. And then I realized the point you make, that it's all out of court and without prosecution... And then there are people who say that their president is not so bad, because he builds good infrastructure.
+1
level 77
Apr 30, 2019
There are also many Filipinos who support all the extrajudicial killings and believe Duterte is "tough" and going to clean up crime and corruption etc, the image he wants to project has taken hold strongly with most of the poor and uneducated, which is most of the country.
+1
level 51
Mar 8, 2017
I thought Sudan was on this list
+1
level 77
Dec 31, 2018
They were a few years back. Pretty high on the list, too.
+1
level 72
Apr 29, 2019
Not Syria?
+1
level 75
May 3, 2019
These days you have to either be a patient or staff in a hospital for the Syrian govt to execute you.
+1
level 86
Apr 30, 2019
I believe the death penalty has a purpose in civilised society but my personal application of it would only be in extreme cases i.e. multiple murders and there is 100% certainty that the person committed those acts - not just proven 'beyond reasonable doubt' (or whatever the particular countries standard of evidence is). I expect this will be very rare (in European countries and Canada, at least). I think a death sentence being an option WILL be a deterrent, if not for people choosing not to murder because they don't want the risk of execution, it will definitely mean the person will not be able to commit any more crimes/murders themselves (ending their life is the ultimate deterrent for that particular individual)! In the situations where I think it should be used, that person is obviously a danger and no use to society - even in prison, they would be a danger to others. So I believe it is best to put them down. It is clearly a very difficult topic to consider and hard to implement
+1
level 53
Apr 30, 2019
Come on America, we can get to #1 !
+3
level 77
Apr 30, 2019
will never happen, it's not even close.
+1
level ∞
Jun 20, 2019
All we have to do is execute another 20,000 people or so every year!!

But seriously, only 25 people were executed in the United States in 2018. It probably cost the government over $1 million per execution. Even if you are pro death penalty, you have to wonder why we bother. It's just political posturing. The death penalty is effectively null in the United States right now.
+1
level 79
Jun 20, 2019
I couldn't disagree more. How much does it cost to try and convict someone of murder, then keep them in prison for life? How much was saved because the death penalty was an option, but a plea deal was reached to avoid the death penalty, thereby sparing the government a costly trial?
+1
level ∞
Jun 20, 2019
It costs more to execute someone than to imprison them for life. The endless legal appeals are extremely expensive. Keep in mind that people are often on death row for decades. But I suppose you are right that the possibility of the death penalty might encourage a plea deal that wouldn't otherwise be possible.
+1
level 61
Jun 20, 2019
It can also save money though, because it is an important bargaining chip for prosecutors. If you have a first-degree murder case with strong evidence of the defendant's guilt, you need the threat of the death penalty to convince a defendant to plead guilty and accept a prison sentence, thereby sparing the expense of a costly murder trial. Without that element, there is no reason for the defendant to plead, because he's likely to face 25-to-life if he he pleads or 25-to-life if he's convicted. He may as well just go to trial. And trials, especially murder trials, can be very expensive.
+1
level 61
Jun 20, 2019
The tagline on the home page for this quiz is "Name the countries that executed the most people in 2015." The description of the quiz says that the data set is from 2015 to 2018. Not a huge deal, just thought I'd point it out!
+1
level ∞
Jun 20, 2019
Fixed, thanks
+1
level 53
Jun 20, 2019
I had typed "singapor" when time was over :/ now 12/13 instead of all
+1
level 15
Jun 20, 2019
missed Somalia
+2
level 32
Jun 21, 2019
amnesty international... ehh, please ignore these propagandic "civil" organisations...
+1
level 33
Sep 24, 2019
If you dont know the number why would you put it on the list?