Death penalty

[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.

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.

That's because when you kill someone, it's too late to say oops.

 

[buckeye45_73]

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.

Well the op wasnt about YOU protesting, it was the anti death penalty nuts.

But im willing to take a chance now that we have DNA and if it reduces the murder rate, many people would be saved

 

[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.

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?

That's too dumb to answer.

 

[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.

Well the op wasnt about YOU protesting, it was the anti death penalty nuts.

But im willing to take a chance now that we have DNA and if it reduces the murder rate, many people would be saved

Study: 88% of criminologists do not believe the death penalty is an effective deterrent | Death Penalty Information Center

 

[buckeye45_73]

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.

Well the op wasnt about YOU protesting, it was the anti death penalty nuts.

But im willing to take a chance now that we have DNA and if it reduces the murder rate, many people would be saved

Study: 88% of criminologists do not believe the death penalty is an effective deterrent | Death Penalty Information Center

Again its based on detergente.
The death penalty as enforced now is not one.

Not every state has it
Not every 1st degree convictions gets it
Not everyone sentence di has it carried out
And if they do its like 30 years later and people dont.remember why

So make every 1st degree murder get it
And do it within 2 years


I'll work much much better then.

 

[esthermoon]

Death penalty causes so many problems. Or at least two big problems: the first one is the fact that judges are not gods so they can sentence innocent people to death; the second problem is that even if somebody is guilty and sentenced to death he should be executed without cruelty.
Unfortunately these two problems are almost unsolvable
In the link below you can find an example of a guily man executed in a terrible way. It's the story of Ronald Smith's execution...he spent 34 minutes before dying

Ronald Smith Heaves and Coughs During Alabama Execution After Tie Vote in Supreme Court Denies Him A Stay | Death Penalty Information Center

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

People who are 100% guilty of murder beyond any doubt at all deserve to be put to death

 

[g5000]

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

People who are 100% guilty of murder beyond any doubt at all deserve to be put to death

I was merely providing counter evidence to the OP's claim that the anti death penalty people are being silent in Roof's case.

It took me ten seconds to, you know, LOOK and find out that was not true.

 

[kaz]

Death penalty causes so many problems. Or at least two big problems: the first one is the fact that judges are not gods so they can sentence innocent people to death; the second problem is that even if somebody is guilty and sentenced to death he should be executed without cruelty.
Unfortunately these two problems are almost unsolvable
In the link below you can find an example of a guily man executed in a terrible way. It's the story of Ronald Smith's execution...he spent 34 minutes before dying

Ronald Smith Heaves and Coughs During Alabama Execution After Tie Vote in Supreme Court Denies Him A Stay | Death Penalty Information Center

FYI, judges can't sentence someone to death in the US, the jury has to do it

 

[esthermoon]

Death penalty causes so many problems. Or at least two big problems: the first one is the fact that judges are not gods so they can sentence innocent people to death; the second problem is that even if somebody is guilty and sentenced to death he should be executed without cruelty.
Unfortunately these two problems are almost unsolvable
In the link below you can find an example of a guily man executed in a terrible way. It's the story of Ronald Smith's execution...he spent 34 minutes before dying

Ronald Smith Heaves and Coughs During Alabama Execution After Tie Vote in Supreme Court Denies Him A Stay | Death Penalty Information Center

FYI, judges can't sentence someone to death in the US, the jury has to do it

Ok sorry I made a mistake
Anyway my reasoning remains the same: jurors are not gods so they can sentence innocent people to death

 

[kaz]

Death penalty causes so many problems. Or at least two big problems: the first one is the fact that judges are not gods so they can sentence innocent people to death; the second problem is that even if somebody is guilty and sentenced to death he should be executed without cruelty.
Unfortunately these two problems are almost unsolvable
In the link below you can find an example of a guily man executed in a terrible way. It's the story of Ronald Smith's execution...he spent 34 minutes before dying

Ronald Smith Heaves and Coughs During Alabama Execution After Tie Vote in Supreme Court Denies Him A Stay | Death Penalty Information Center

FYI, judges can't sentence someone to death in the US, the jury has to do it

Ok sorry I made a mistake
Anyway my reasoning remains the same: jurors are not gods so they can sentence innocent people to death

I understand. FYI means I'm just giving you information. I wasn't knocking your post, just letting you know how it works here. Juries aren't perfect either, but it is better if a jury of one's peers decide they deserve death rather than leaving it up to one government employee to decide. That is the basis of our legal system. Fellow citizens should convict you, not the government. And fellow citizens should decide if your crime merits death, not the government.

So what happens more specifically is first you have a trial for murder. If the jury convicts you of a capital crime, they have a second trial with the same judge and same jury on whether the murder merits the death penalty. The number of victims, level of cruelty and so forth are argued. If the jury decides to not sentence you to death, that does not undo the murder conviction so then you go to jail. Typically if it's a capital crime and you are not sentenced to death, you are sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole

 

[esthermoon]

Death penalty causes so many problems. Or at least two big problems: the first one is the fact that judges are not gods so they can sentence innocent people to death; the second problem is that even if somebody is guilty and sentenced to death he should be executed without cruelty.
Unfortunately these two problems are almost unsolvable
In the link below you can find an example of a guily man executed in a terrible way. It's the story of Ronald Smith's execution...he spent 34 minutes before dying

Ronald Smith Heaves and Coughs During Alabama Execution After Tie Vote in Supreme Court Denies Him A Stay | Death Penalty Information Center

FYI, judges can't sentence someone to death in the US, the jury has to do it

Ok sorry I made a mistake
Anyway my reasoning remains the same: jurors are not gods so they can sentence innocent people to death

I understand. FYI means I'm just giving you information. I wasn't knocking your post, just letting you know how it works here. Juries aren't perfect either, but it is better if a jury of one's peers decide they deserve death rather than leaving it up to one government employee to decide. That is the basis of our legal system. Fellow citizens should convict you, not the government. And fellow citizens should decide if your crime merits death, not the government.

So what happens more specifically is first you have a trial for murder. If the jury convicts you of a capital crime, they have a second trial with the same judge and same jury on whether the murder merits the death penalty. The number of victims, level of cruelty and so forth are argued. If the jury decides to not sentence you to death, that does not undo the murder conviction so then you go to jail. Typically if it's a capital crime and you are not sentenced to death, you are sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole

Thanks for your explenation about US criminal system and death penalty in USA.
Anyway I wasn't "angry" for your previous post. I just didn't know the meaning of FYI lol

 

[kaz]

Death penalty causes so many problems. Or at least two big problems: the first one is the fact that judges are not gods so they can sentence innocent people to death; the second problem is that even if somebody is guilty and sentenced to death he should be executed without cruelty.
Unfortunately these two problems are almost unsolvable
In the link below you can find an example of a guily man executed in a terrible way. It's the story of Ronald Smith's execution...he spent 34 minutes before dying

Ronald Smith Heaves and Coughs During Alabama Execution After Tie Vote in Supreme Court Denies Him A Stay | Death Penalty Information Center

FYI, judges can't sentence someone to death in the US, the jury has to do it

Ok sorry I made a mistake
Anyway my reasoning remains the same: jurors are not gods so they can sentence innocent people to death

I understand. FYI means I'm just giving you information. I wasn't knocking your post, just letting you know how it works here. Juries aren't perfect either, but it is better if a jury of one's peers decide they deserve death rather than leaving it up to one government employee to decide. That is the basis of our legal system. Fellow citizens should convict you, not the government. And fellow citizens should decide if your crime merits death, not the government.

So what happens more specifically is first you have a trial for murder. If the jury convicts you of a capital crime, they have a second trial with the same judge and same jury on whether the murder merits the death penalty. The number of victims, level of cruelty and so forth are argued. If the jury decides to not sentence you to death, that does not undo the murder conviction so then you go to jail. Typically if it's a capital crime and you are not sentenced to death, you are sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole

Thanks for your explenation about US criminal system and death penalty in USA.
Anyway I wasn't "angry" for your previous post. I just didn't know the meaning of FYI lol

You're welcome. BTW, I oppose the death penalty. I think we need to keep criminals in jail and not let them back on the street like we do too often, but I think as a society we need to move beyond killing criminals

 

[martybegan]

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.

That's because when you kill someone, it's too late to say oops.

And when they die 30 more years later in jail of old age, it's too late as well. Again, that guy gets ignored and the idiot who was ON VIDEO killing some clerk in a 7-eleven gets hundreds of thousands in appeals to prove he was too stupid to do it willfully, or his original lawyer sucked, or the jury was biased.

 

[kaz]

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.

That's because when you kill someone, it's too late to say oops.

And when they die 30 more years later in jail of old age, it's too late as well. Again, that guy gets ignored and the idiot who was ON VIDEO killing some clerk in a 7-eleven gets hundreds of thousands in appeals to prove he was too stupid to do it willfully, or his original lawyer sucked, or the jury was biased.

Liberals in their love of human kind do somehow always end up fighting for the bad guys who harm and murder people. Interesting, huh?

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Abortion is not a crime...murder is

I am not advocating they not be punished, only what the punishment should be

 

[martybegan]

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.

That's because when you kill someone, it's too late to say oops.

And when they die 30 more years later in jail of old age, it's too late as well. Again, that guy gets ignored and the idiot who was ON VIDEO killing some clerk in a 7-eleven gets hundreds of thousands in appeals to prove he was too stupid to do it willfully, or his original lawyer sucked, or the jury was biased.

Liberals in their love of human kind do somehow always end up fighting for the bad guys who harm and murder people. Interesting, huh?

Again, if it was about the innocent, they would limit their DP fights to those who proclaim their innocence and that have even a shred of contradictory evidence to the conviction. They could use the rest of the $$ to investigate all those life without parole cases where someone actually innocent may be languishing.

Instead they use the "spaghetti on the wall" method of fighting the DP, attacking every little thing even in cases where is 100% known the perp did it.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

The countries that don't execute also follow due process.....they consider the US to be barbaric

 

[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.

The countries that don't execute also follow due process.....they consider the US to be barbaric

They can kindly go fuck themselves. and the European ones are about to have their hands full now that they have invited in a population that is far more violent prone than their existing population base.

 

[TheDude]

My world would be so Trump-like, more or less:

A. Robbery. We don't incarcerate you, that costs money. We simply remove a hand, provide medical asst. and set you free. Awesome deterrent.

B. Sex predator? Take a wild guess what's going to the chop block. No incarceration.

C. You like abortion? We remove your mothering parts the second time. With permission of course, but then if you don't sign we can't provide the abortion.

D. Illegal passing our border? We're going to leave a mark such as a brand and send you into the other direction. Come back and you're incarcerated on your homeland's dime. Think they won't pay? Give me a break, we're the USA and play hardball fuckers.

E. Boob jobs are free (just kidding). I actually hate them, Blow-up Betty is just as useful.

F. Speak of free stuff, get your birth control on your own dime. You don't pay for my visits to the cat house, and I don't pay for your entry, pardon the pun.

G. We're repealing same sex marriage. You get a civil union instead. Mostly the same rights. Dudes use the girl's bathroom? Sure, if you can pass as a woman. If not then be prepared to pay a fine.

H. First degree murder? Unless you're mentally retarded, evidence provided we're putting you down in a swift manner. None of the liberal chaotic this drug and that either. I'd suggest a 30-06 round, but a rope is cheap and has multi-uses.

I. Collecting welfare and able to work? Grab a broom or trash bag. Our streets and landscape are clean fuckers.

J. Abuse an animal? Eye for an eye.

K. On welfare and having babies? We'll trade you cash for your mothering parts, deal?

L. Assault? See A.

M. Discipline problem as a kid? Welcome to the military "There will be no racial bigotry here! I do not look down on miggers, kikes, wops, or greasers! Here, you are ALL equally useless!"

N. Don't "speak" English? You'll need to get your education on your own time and $, because we no longer "tolerate" that BS. All government literature is English only. Our kids will be educated ,and we'll no longer entertain the costs and chaos for the sake of tolerance.

O. Islam-extremest sympathizer? The next parachute to Syria is scheduled for Monday. The bus leaves at 4am or we'll come and get you.

P. Using your cell phone while driving? Not anymore, the fine is intense and WE ENFORCE THE LAW NOW.

Q. Throwing your trash onto the ground? Not on our mother Earth, the fine is intense and WE ENFORCE THE LAW NOW.

R. Producing goods or services that are no more than a waste of resources? Not here. False advertising? Not here either.