How about we just execute people who are 100% guilty. Meaning DNA, caught on camera doing it, admitting to it, etc? Would you be ok in those circumstances?
If deterrence is the goal, then executions need to be as public as possible.
I'm ok with the death penalty in principle, but am against it for practical and political reasons:
1. too many wrongful convictions by overzealous and unethical DAs
2. I don't trust the government with the authority to kill its citizens for any reason.
Both of which stem from the fact that in the event of a mistake there's no undoing death.
If you're going to have a death penalty though; you need to do it right: gas chamber filled with inert gas such as helium or nitrogen (e.g not cyanide)
that there is an orgy of evidence happens maybe once in a lifetime.
that there is an orgy of evidence happens maybe once in a lifetime.
So not only are you really stupid, but a liar as well. Which is typical for death penalty supporters. Probably something with how they are raised, I guess garbage in, garbage out.
There isn't, we already had a thread on this not long ago.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. That doesn't mean it is right. Please provide proof where I lied about wanting innocent people executed. If you're going to make silly statements like that, then back them up.
Your ignorant blanket statement about death penalty supporters is pretty laughable, judging them by one decision. Only you are right and nobody else!!!! So funny.
Ackmed said:And then IF an appeal is warranted then they deserve that. I do not want innocent people executed. But silly appeals that take over 20 years? C'mon now, that is just stupid.Once the verdict is in and appeals are used, do it.
How about we just execute people who are 100% guilty. Meaning DNA, caught on camera doing it, admitting to it, etc? Would you be ok in those circumstances?
Really? I'll submit four that meet the standard I'm imagining.that there is an orgy of evidence happens maybe once in a lifetime.
That flaw cant be fixed. So yes I am fine with them all living in confinement for the rest of their lives.
Really? I'll submit four that meet the standard I'm imagining.
Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan
Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev
Theater shooter James Holmes
Mass shooter Jared Lee Loughner
Until it's decided that's not longer acceptable either, which is the next argument. Not to mention that it kinda removes any reason for criminals to show restraint at all - why not kill the potential witnesses or prison guard if it doesn't worsen the severity of the sentence anyway? What are you going to do, give them a second or third sentence of life without parole?
If a state is going to have a death penalty there has to be a method. The firing squad is no more gruesome than the lethal injection, electric chair or hanging. I personally don't have a problem with it, but I feel that the bar should be set rather higher for proof at conviction. The thing that I do have an issue with is the years and years of lingering on death row. That should end.
It's disgusting that the Death Penalty still exists in this age. I don't care what the Criminal has been found guilty of, there is no need for the DP. It doesn't deter anything and all too often it merely kills innocent people who were railroaded by the system.
There should be a high standard of evidence needed to invoke it to prevent said railroading. Beyond that I don't see the issue. It saves money and can possibly serve as a deterrent. Right not it certainly doesn't do either as being on "death row" means you've still got years or decades of appeals to live through.
There should be a high standard of evidence needed to invoke it to prevent said railroading. Beyond that I don't see the issue. It saves money and can possibly serve as a deterrent. Right not it certainly doesn't do either as being on "death row" means you've still got years or decades of appeals to live through.
I think the first half of your post and the second half are in conflict.
It doesn't save money because of the high standard of evidence. You can't have both.
High standard of evidence and endless appeals process are two very different things. If there's no new evidence to present and no debate over the nature of the evidence then appealing is just reinventing the wheel multiple times and a pure stalling tactic.
Why bother, other than for the sake of vengeance?
"Possibly serve as a deterrent" is the death penalty equivalent of reefer madness. It's mere assertion of what you want to believe- aka Bullshit.
As it is, the death penalty *does not save money* & the chances of that changing are as close to zero as it gets. Death penalty opponents will continue to make every appeal possible regardless of the guilt or innocence of their client while contributing to an overload on the legal system. They won't show nearly the same zeal if the death penalty went away.
As taxpayers, we should oppose the death penalty simply because it costs a lot more than keeping a prisoner until he dies on the inside & the real world difference to us is basically non-existent.
Yeah but there almost always is, hence all the appeals.
Well we can debate what the "high standard" should be all day, but even if only an extreme minority meet it it would be worth it IMO. Obviously lowering the standard too far won't work, we're not going to solve criminality by killing all the criminals. The idea is to publicly demonstrate swift, decisive and final action on the part of the justice system and to save the taxpayers money.
The idea is to publicly demonstrate swift, decisive and final action on the part of the justice system and to save the taxpayers money.