Death penalty

[martybegan]

If every executed person was as unquestionably guilty as Roof, I would say fry them all. Unfortunately, we have killed too many innocent people, and it's too late to find that out after they are dead. It's cheaper to just lock them up forever, and we don't take the chance of more guilty people going free because we killed an innocent person for their crime.

Why is it any better to lock someone up for 50 years if they are innocent, than to execute them after 10-20? You probably operate under the assumption that it gives time to eventually exonerate them, but right now we have plenty of people doing life without parole, and unfortunately some of them may be innocent. What is the difference between them dying of old age or by a needle?

50 years for something you didn't do would suck, but not as bad as being dead when new evidence proves you didn't do it. You won't believe me, so find out for yourself how much more it costs to kill them than to lock them up forever. We don't have to kill them to protect the rest of society, even if some of them deserve it. It's about who we as a people are more than it is about what they did.

If you lose a family member or a friend to crime, you can volunteer at the sentencing to testify on behalf of the convicted. But you cannot deny other's their right to ask the State for the ultimate punishment.

and how much effort is spent on life without parole cases to dig through and find out if a person is innocent? Death penalty cases get all the attention because people have an axe to grind. How many people are sitting in jail, rotting away, innocent?

Most of the people arguing to commute death sentences don't claim the person is innocent, they claim mental defect, poor trial procedures, discrimination by juries, technicalities on the DP laws. Why not spend that money on actual innocent people, rotting under 30 years to life sentences?

 

[BULLDOG]

If every executed person was as unquestionably guilty as Roof, I would say fry them all. Unfortunately, we have killed too many innocent people, and it's too late to find that out after they are dead. It's cheaper to just lock them up forever, and we don't take the chance of more guilty people going free because we killed an innocent person for their crime.

Yeah they protested ted Bundys execution, i guess theyre misogynistic then.

I didn't protest Ted Bundy's execution, but not all executed prisoners are guilty.

 

[toomuchtime_]

I'd lock him up for the rest of his life

Some crimes don't deserve three hots and a cot.

Executing prisoners reflects more poorly on our society than the person being executed

Eye for an eye justice is best saved for Sharia Law

So you would keep depraved mass murderers alive but support a woman's right to kill her baby?

Yup

Not even close to the same thing......Are you advocating the death penalty for women who get abortions?

No, but you are advocating the death penalty for babies who are guilty of the crime of being unwanted, and yet demand that depraved mass mass murderers be spared? You seem always to be on side of the killers.

 

[BULLDOG]

If every executed person was as unquestionably guilty as Roof, I would say fry them all. Unfortunately, we have killed too many innocent people, and it's too late to find that out after they are dead. It's cheaper to just lock them up forever, and we don't take the chance of more guilty people going free because we killed an innocent person for their crime.

Are you saying that the science used to determine the DNA isn't sure enough? Are you saying that the science of Global Warming isn't sure enough?

Burrrrrrrrrrrn!

Dummmmmmmmmb!

 

[martybegan]

I'd lock him up for the rest of his life

Some crimes don't deserve three hots and a cot.

Executing prisoners reflects more poorly on our society than the person being executed

Eye for an eye justice is best saved for Sharia Law

Giving them 20 years to prove their innocence actually reflects far more on our society's need to be sure about it before we off them.

The victim's relatives can always make their view known during sentencing. if they want leniency, I'm sure the criminal will get it. But the ultimate punishment for some crimes has to always be on the table.

Only savage societies like China, the Muslim world and Red States in the US agree with you

Those countries don't follow the due process we do, (even in Red states, you condescending fucktard)

They are not comparable.

 

[Skull Pilot]

When there is absolutely no doubt (not merely beyond reasonable doubt) I have no problem with the death penalty

This is one of those absolutely no doubt cases

 

[toomuchtime_]

If every executed person was as unquestionably guilty as Roof, I would say fry them all. Unfortunately, we have killed too many innocent people, and it's too late to find that out after they are dead. It's cheaper to just lock them up forever, and we don't take the chance of more guilty people going free because we killed an innocent person for their crime.

Are you saying that the science used to determine the DNA isn't sure enough? Are you saying that the science of Global Warming isn't sure enough?

No dumb ass. I'm talking about executing innocent people.

You are also talking about depraved mass murderers since you claim it is not possible for the system to distinguish between them.

 

[g5000]

The anti-death penalty nutters are mysteriously quiet on the Dylann roof trial…

He hasn't been given the death penalty yet.

 

[g5000]

Why Many African Americans Don’t Want Dylann Roof Executed

Ethel Lance was among those he killed. But her daughter, Sharon Risher—who also lost two cousins in the carnage—does not believe Roof should die.

 

[BULLDOG]

If every executed person was as unquestionably guilty as Roof, I would say fry them all. Unfortunately, we have killed too many innocent people, and it's too late to find that out after they are dead. It's cheaper to just lock them up forever, and we don't take the chance of more guilty people going free because we killed an innocent person for their crime.

Why is it any better to lock someone up for 50 years if they are innocent, than to execute them after 10-20? You probably operate under the assumption that it gives time to eventually exonerate them, but right now we have plenty of people doing life without parole, and unfortunately some of them may be innocent. What is the difference between them dying of old age or by a needle?

50 years for something you didn't do would suck, but not as bad as being dead when new evidence proves you didn't do it. You won't believe me, so find out for yourself how much more it costs to kill them than to lock them up forever. We don't have to kill them to protect the rest of society, even if some of them deserve it. It's about who we as a people are more than it is about what they did.

If you lose a family member or a friend to crime, you can volunteer at the sentencing to testify on behalf of the convicted. But you cannot deny other's their right to ask the State for the ultimate punishment.

and how much effort is spent on life without parole cases to dig through and find out if a person is innocent? Death penalty cases get all the attention because people have an axe to grind. How many people are sitting in jail, rotting away, innocent?

Most of the people arguing to commute death sentences don't claim the person is innocent, they claim mental defect, poor trial procedures, discrimination by juries, technicalities on the DP laws. Why not spend that money on actual innocent people, rotting under 30 years to life sentences?

Great idea. How are you going to implement that? We have laws concerning trial procedure, jury discrimination, and all that other stuff to protect the innocent. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't complain about all that if you somehow got locked up for something you didn't do.

 

[g5000]

Dylann Roof Gets Famed Anti-Death Penalty Attorney For Federal Trial

 

[g5000]

Why even an accused racist murderer like Dylann Roof shouldn't face the death penalty

 

[BULLDOG]

I'd lock him up for the rest of his life

Some crimes don't deserve three hots and a cot.

Executing prisoners reflects more poorly on our society than the person being executed

Eye for an eye justice is best saved for Sharia Law

Giving them 20 years to prove their innocence actually reflects far more on our society's need to be sure about it before we off them.

The victim's relatives can always make their view known during sentencing. if they want leniency, I'm sure the criminal will get it. But the ultimate punishment for some crimes has to always be on the table.

Only savage societies like China, the Muslim world and Red States in the US agree with you

Those countries don't follow the due process we do, (even in Red states, you condescending fucktard)

They are not comparable.

Sure, they are comparable. That group is just about the only ones in the world who kill their prisoners.

 

[martybegan]

If every executed person was as unquestionably guilty as Roof, I would say fry them all. Unfortunately, we have killed too many innocent people, and it's too late to find that out after they are dead. It's cheaper to just lock them up forever, and we don't take the chance of more guilty people going free because we killed an innocent person for their crime.

Why is it any better to lock someone up for 50 years if they are innocent, than to execute them after 10-20? You probably operate under the assumption that it gives time to eventually exonerate them, but right now we have plenty of people doing life without parole, and unfortunately some of them may be innocent. What is the difference between them dying of old age or by a needle?

50 years for something you didn't do would suck, but not as bad as being dead when new evidence proves you didn't do it. You won't believe me, so find out for yourself how much more it costs to kill them than to lock them up forever. We don't have to kill them to protect the rest of society, even if some of them deserve it. It's about who we as a people are more than it is about what they did.

If you lose a family member or a friend to crime, you can volunteer at the sentencing to testify on behalf of the convicted. But you cannot deny other's their right to ask the State for the ultimate punishment.

and how much effort is spent on life without parole cases to dig through and find out if a person is innocent? Death penalty cases get all the attention because people have an axe to grind. How many people are sitting in jail, rotting away, innocent?

Most of the people arguing to commute death sentences don't claim the person is innocent, they claim mental defect, poor trial procedures, discrimination by juries, technicalities on the DP laws. Why not spend that money on actual innocent people, rotting under 30 years to life sentences?

Great idea. How are you going to implement that? We have laws concerning trial procedure, jury discrimination, and all that other stuff to protect the innocent. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't complain about all that if you somehow got locked up for something you didn't do.

There is already a system in place. What I am saying is people seem only to care if the DP is involved, and care when the person is obviously guilty. So the whole "may be innocent" thing is a crock.

There are far more people doing life who are innocent that who face the DP, but the DP is a cause celebre for progressives, another way to "show the rubes how to think".

And its another loser.

 

[martybegan]

Some crimes don't deserve three hots and a cot.

Executing prisoners reflects more poorly on our society than the person being executed

Eye for an eye justice is best saved for Sharia Law

Giving them 20 years to prove their innocence actually reflects far more on our society's need to be sure about it before we off them.

The victim's relatives can always make their view known during sentencing. if they want leniency, I'm sure the criminal will get it. But the ultimate punishment for some crimes has to always be on the table.

Only savage societies like China, the Muslim world and Red States in the US agree with you

Those countries don't follow the due process we do, (even in Red states, you condescending fucktard)

They are not comparable.

Sure, they are comparable. That group is just about the only ones in the world who kill their prisoners.

Nope. Our due process sets us apart.

 

[g5000]

Drop the death penalty for Dylann Roof

 

[g5000]

Took me just a few seconds to find examples of anti-death penalty advocates in the Roof case.

The OP is yet another example of a topic writer listening to the imaginary voices in his head instead of actually LOOKING FOR THE FACTS which might contradict his delusions.

 

[BULLDOG]

If every executed person was as unquestionably guilty as Roof, I would say fry them all. Unfortunately, we have killed too many innocent people, and it's too late to find that out after they are dead. It's cheaper to just lock them up forever, and we don't take the chance of more guilty people going free because we killed an innocent person for their crime.

Are you saying that the science used to determine the DNA isn't sure enough? Are you saying that the science of Global Warming isn't sure enough?

No dumb ass. I'm talking about executing innocent people.

You are also talking about depraved mass murderers since you claim it is not possible for the system to distinguish between them.

I'm saying that there have been cases where we haven't been able to distinguish between innocent and guilty people. Either way. I wasn't talking about accuracy of DNA or Global Climate Change.

 

[jc456]

If every executed person was as unquestionably guilty as Roof, I would say fry them all. Unfortunately, we have killed too many innocent people, and it's too late to find that out after they are dead. It's cheaper to just lock them up forever, and we don't take the chance of more guilty people going free because we killed an innocent person for their crime.

Why is it any better to lock someone up for 50 years if they are innocent, than to execute them after 10-20? You probably operate under the assumption that it gives time to eventually exonerate them, but right now we have plenty of people doing life without parole, and unfortunately some of them may be innocent. What is the difference between them dying of old age or by a needle?

50 years for something you didn't do would suck, but not as bad as being dead when new evidence proves you didn't do it. You won't believe me, so find out for yourself how much more it costs to kill them than to lock them up forever. We don't have to kill them to protect the rest of society, even if some of them deserve it. It's about who we as a people are more than it is about what they did.

and if the inmate dies in jail due to old age, does it really make a difference? Doesn't dead = dead?

Why is it only you have to feel ok about it?

 

[Meathead]

No dumb ass. I'm talking about executing innocent people.

You're talking theory and bull. SCOTUS has ruled on the legality of the death penalty and provided for ample venues of appeal. DNA can prove and disprove convictions in most cases and pre-empt injust sentences.

There is no surer thing in lawand justly so.