Death penalty?

[MuzzieChik786]

Tell him that if he's found guilty, he will receive the death penalty. If he pleads he can get life in prison. If he accepts the plea and saves the time/money of a trial...life in prison. If he fights it and is found guilty, death penalty.

Why should he have a choice? O_o

And why should tax payers pay for his azz to play ping pong for life?

I just don't understand all you people who want to SAVE everyone. You know people die every day right? We're talking about convicted serious criminals.

[TheAdlerian]

Why should he have a choice? O_o

And why should tax payers pay for his azz to play ping pong for life?

I just don't understand all you people who want to SAVE everyone. You know people die every day right? We're talking about convicted serious criminals.

Read my posts, as they answer those questions.

[MuzzieChik786]

Read my posts, as they answer those questions.

No, because your posts are full of chit. lol. I stopped taking you seriously a while ago.

[TheAdlerian]

No, because your posts are full of chit. lol. I stopped taking you seriously a while ago.

I assume that's because you're a talentless do nothing narcistic loser?

Continue on.

[JMath]

Why should he have a choice? O_o

And why should tax payers pay for his azz to play ping pong for life?

I just don't understand all you people who want to SAVE everyone. You know people die every day right? We're talking about convicted serious criminals.

Not trying to "save everyone". Trying to 1) Prevent innocent people from being put to death by making the burden of proof higher and 2) Save all of us money by avoiding the costs of trials. There is ALWAYS going to be an option for the person to plead guilty (almost always for a lesser penalty)... my scenario allows that to continue, while also punishing the people who undeniably did it.

I also wouldn't make exception to people who claim "insanity" or other nonsense. If you're a threat to go insane and kill someone, out of society you go my friend.

[MuzzieChik786]

I assume that's because you're a talentless do nothing narcistic loser?

Continue on.

I'm real-er than you. Been homeless before and worked in mental health for 7 years. So go kick rocks you fake. =)

Not trying to "save everyone". Trying to 1) Prevent innocent people from being put to death by making the burden of proof higher and

So you don't think our current justice system does that? I mean you have to basically have a smoking gun scenario in order to convict and penalize someone with the death penalty.

Meanwhile, we've got people like Sandusky who raped tons of boys chill maxing in prison. lol.

2) Save all of us money by avoiding the costs of trials. There is ALWAYS going to be an option for the person to plead guilty (almost always for a lesser penalty)... my scenario allows that to continue, while also punishing the people who undeniably did it.

The cost of trial is probably less than providing housing for a murderer on death row for 40+ years.

I also wouldn't make exception to people who claim "insanity" or other nonsense. If you're a threat to go insane and kill someone, out of society you go my friend.

Nah, if they're genuinely "insane" not the man-made mental illnesses we have today - yes, they should be excluded.

[Godfrd824]

The death penalty should not be a detterent. It should be used to remove people who cannot be rehabilitated from society.

Read the article below and tell me with a straight face that this woman doesn't deserve to be executed.

https://allthatsinteresting.com/mitchelle-blair

[MuzzieChik786]

The death penalty should not be a detterent. It should be used to remove people who cannot be rehabilitated from society.

Why not both?

[MegaSloot]

Emphatic yes.

[Beararms]

I'm for it but there has to be absolutely undeniable proof that the person committed to death did the crime. I mean there cant be any screw ups. One person being wrongfully put to death is a disaster and cannot happen. Seen way to many older cases of people being wrongfully committed because piece of **** cops, lawyers, and judges hid or ignored evidence that could of saved someones life. All they cared about was closing the case.

[Seatard]

I think people deserve it sometimes but it's too much power for government to have over citizens.

[JMath]

So you don't think our current justice system does that? I mean you have to basically have a smoking gun scenario in order to convict and penalize someone with the death penalty.

Meanwhile, we've got people like Sandusky who raped tons of boys chill maxing in prison. lol.

I don't think our justice system does that. Don't get me wrong, they get it right the overwhelming majority of the time, but there have been plenty of wrongly convicted people in our day. As it is now, you don't need a smoking gun scenario. The person just has to be found guilty with any amount of evidence. Usually the prosecutor is up front that they're going for the death penalty before the trial and all the evidence. Once they're guilty, they're guilty. Their sentencing isn't based on how likely it is they did it, they've already been proven to be guilty.

Hey, I'm not excusing rapists from people who can get the ax. If you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt... Sandusky can go to the guillotine too.

The cost of trial is probably less than providing housing for a murderer on death row for 40+ years.

If there was an actual study showing that, then I would 100% be against that part of my idea. But (and maybe they have a bias) most of the stuff that I have heard is that trials and appeals end up costing more for a death penalty case than if they were just thrown away for life. If that's not true though... sheit... off with their heads!

Nah, if they're genuinely "insane" not the man-made mental illnesses we have today - yes, they should be excluded.

Why? I don't care if the person is a threat to society because they're "insane", or because they're just cold blooded. If you did some heinous crime, you're a threat regardless. Off with their heads too.

[TheAdlerian]

I'm real-er than you. Been homeless before and worked in mental health for 7 years. So go kick rocks you fake. =)

Translation: I am really a dude and this is a fake account. I don't know anything about the topic and I'm afraid to discuss it with you.

[Olympia2018]

The arguments against it are being mitigated through advanced technology. Specifically killing innocent people (which has happened).

I don’t support it. It was outlawed once, and I feel like it will be again in our lifetime. Of course I could be wrong.

Yeah totally agree! A monster who murders people in cold blood (could be your mom one day) and rapes kids and kills them absolutely deserves to be fed 3 times a day with a shower in amazing weather conditions for life with endless tv, workouts, and time to read and partake in other normal activities with maximum protection



Please fukn leave the misc and return anything u have from the military ASAP

Seriously fk off

[TheAdlerian]

The death penalty should not be a detterent. It should be used to remove people who cannot be rehabilitated from society.

Read the article below and tell me with a straight face that this woman doesn't deserve to be executed.

https://allthatsinteresting.com/mitchelle-blair

There's lots of thought out there, and evidence, that the death penalty is the opposite of a deterrent and actually causes more murder as one needs to get rid of the evidence.

Rape for instance isn't a life sentence, but in PA a lot of rapists, especially toward kids will get like a 80 year sentence or more. So, the min date is 40 years from now. So, if you're 30 you MAY get out at 70, but if not, you have a life sentence, it's just not called that.

Really harsh sentence can also cause murder as it may seem better for the criminal to kill all witnesses to avoid spending life in jail.

All of this stuff isn't just about punishing people but also the entire package of even how people commit crimes.

[TheAdlerian]

Yeah totally agree! A monster who murders people in cold blood (could be your mom one day) and rapes kids and kills them absolutely deserves to be fed 3 times a day with a shower in amazing weather conditions for life with endless tv, workouts, and time to read and partake in other normal activities with maximum protection



Please fukn leave the misc and return anything u have from the military ASAP

Seriously fk off

It's not about what the inmate deserves.

It's about overall society, as I explained in a previous post.

[AlwaysFocus]

Used more, and have it in the city square like old times

[ShanghaiSpecial]

I used to be for it, but I've recently had a change of heart because I learned of this case: . It broke my heart srs.

I've since learned that there have been over 100 cases over the past few decades where a defendant was sentenced to death but were later proven innocent because of technology or confession recants or some other development. In my mind, to sentence even one innocent person to die is unacceptable so I am against the death penalty in general.

The only time I think it would be acceptable is when the evidence shows that the accused committed the crime with 100% certainty. I'm talking evidence where there can be absolutely no doubt, a higher standard than the 'beyond reasonable doubt' needed for a conviction.

So that means you are against death sentence when their is no proof of guilt without reasonable doubt.

Everyone should be against that.

That doesn't mean you are against the death penalty.

A confession is not proof of guilt without reasonable doubt.

He should have never been convicted to begin with.

[ShanghaiSpecial]

It should be used for anyone who would get a life sentence, where it is undeniable that they did it, AND the case has to go to trial. Essentially, create a second tier of burden of proof. To just be found guilty - beyond a reasonable doubt. Death penalty - Beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Example: That Holmes guy in Colorado who shot up the theater. 0% chance that he is innocent. Give him an option. Tell him that if he's found guilty, he will receive the death penalty. If he pleads he can get life in prison. If he accepts the plea and saves the time/money of a trial...life in prison. If he fights it and is found guilty, death penalty.

Or just have a normal trial in which undeniable / unquestional proof of guilt is required and execute him shortly after.

[Godfrd824]

Why not both?

Criminals, being intelligent as they are, they always believe they're the one who will not get caught, that's why it's not a deterrent. But certain people need to be removed from society permanently.

[Lunatic]

Translation: I am really a dude and this is a fake account. I don't know anything about the topic and I'm afraid to discuss it with you.

And you're a frauding ******* that makes **** up to impress strangers on a web forum.

[whitedoor]

Didn't read thread but repeated studies have shown that the death penalty has zero effect in deterring offences. If anything it could be seen as the easy way out as opposed to life in prison.

Doesn't even prevent reoffending as someone sentenced to death has nothing to lose in the meantime so will commit any kind of assault etc In the system in the meantime.

Brb showing murdering is wrong by also murdering. Outdated punishment.


But despite all this realistically If someone close to you is taken I can't pretend I wouldn't understand the desire for retribution .

I'm against it but I understand the arguements for it.

[SoutheastBeast1]

Soon there won’t even be prisons now that big daddy Biden is in charge

[Godfrd824]

Didn't read thread but repeated studies have shown that the death penalty has zero effect in deterring offences. If anything it could be seen as the easy way out as opposed to life in prison.

Doesn't even prevent reoffending as someone sentenced to death has nothing to lose in the meantime so will commit any kind of assault etc In the system in the meantime.

Brb showing murdering is wrong by also murdering. Outdated punishment.


But despite all this realistically If someone close to you is taken I can't pretend I wouldn't understand the desire for retribution .

I'm against it but I understand the arguements for it.

It's not for deterrence, it's to remove people who cannot integrate with normal society from society.

[whitedoor]

It's not for deterrence, it's to remove people who cannot integrate with normal society from society.

Life imprisonment would largely achieve the same goal without the moral hypocrisy

Killing is wrong therefore you should die. Understand that viewpoint but very hard to justify.

Is incapacitation more important than rehabilitation? SRS question btw

[Godfrd824]

Life imprisonment would largely achieve the same goal without the moral hypocrisy

Killing is wrong therefore you should die. Understand that viewpoint but very hard to justify.

Is incapacitation more important than rehabilitation? SRS question btw

Killing is not wrong, murder is wrong, look up the definition of each. There are certain people you can't rehabilitate. Did you see my post on page two? Why pay for a lifetime of incarceration when a bullet costs $.75?

The death penalty should not be a deterrent. It should be used to remove people who cannot be rehabilitated from society.

Read the article below and tell me with a straight face that this woman doesn't deserve to be executed.

https://allthatsinteresting.com/mitchelle-blair

Please read that article.

[whitedoor]

Killing is not wrong, murder is wrong, look up the definition of each. There are certain people you can't rehabilitate. Did you see my post on page two? Why pay for a lifetime of incarceration when a bullet costs $.75?



Please read that article.

Is killing someone in retribution on death row who can't realistically defend themselves not also murder, regardless of how much of a POS they are? Not saying it's not deserved but it's still hypocrisy and destroys the arguement of any sort of moral high ground. Medieval level.of justice.

Agreed that a bullet is less expensive but that's not the way it works. A capital punishment trial is so expensive (for fear of making a mistake that can't be changed) that it often costs more than life imprisonment (SRS). A bullet is cheaper, the death penalty isn't .

[Godfrd824]

Is killing someone in retribution on death row who can't realistically defend themselves not also murder, regardless of how much of a POS they are? Not saying it's not deserved but it's still hypocrisy and destroys the arguement of any sort of moral high ground. Medieval level.of justice.

Agreed that a bullet is less expensive but that's not the way it works. A capital punishment trial is so expensive (for fear of making a mistake that can't be changed) that it often costs more than life imprisonment (SRS). A bullet is cheaper, the death penalty isn't .

It's not retribution, they're a waste of space and resources. And the reason capital punishment is expensive is because of the BS back and forth. Most people on death row don't even deny that they did the crime, they usually fight it with a BS excuse like their parents abused them. It's irrelevant, if you have mental health issues and you murdered 10 people, that's an even better reason to put you down than if you were of sound mind and committed the same crime.

Why don't we as a society do this, you wanna keep these animals alive, you pay for them, how about that? Or better yet, once someone is sentenced to death, we'll give them 1 year to find another country to take them in, if they find a country willing to take them in, then we extradite them to said country, where they can continue to murder people. If they don't, we put them down.

[whitedoor]

It's not retribution, they're a waste of space and resources. And the reason capital punishment is expensive is because of the BS back and forth. Most people on death row don't even deny that they did the crime, they usually fight it with a BS excuse like their parents abused them. It's irrelevant, if you have mental health issues and you murdered 10 people, that's an even better reason to put you down than if you were of sound mind and committed the same crime.

Why don't we as a society do this, you wanna keep these animals alive, you pay for them, how about that? Or better yet, once someone is sentenced to death, we'll give them 1 year to find another country to take them in, if they find a country willing to take them in, then we extradite them to said country, where they can continue to murder people. If they don't, we put them down.

The back and forth can be BS but you make a mistake and execute an innocent man..... No release from a life sentence, no compensation just straight up murder by the state. Not common but something they need to be very careful of hence the back and forth.

As for anti capital punishment people footing the bill, we don't choose which taxes we pay or laws we obey based on our personal feelings it's all or nothing. Would be like charging pro capital punishment people with a state capital punishment trial fees etc

Fully understand your points don't get me wrong just don't think they would work in practice. Not as simple as taking someone out back after a guilty verdict and giving them the firing squad.

[Godfrd824]

The back and forth can be BS but you make a mistake and execute an innocent man..... No release from a life sentence, no compensation just straight up murder by the state. Not common but something they need to be very careful of hence the back and forth.

As for anti capital punishment people footing the bill, we don't choose which taxes we pay or laws we obey based on our personal feelings it's all or nothing. Would be like charging pro capital punishment people with a state capital punishment trial fees etc

Fully understand your points don't get me wrong just don't think they would work in practice. Not as simple as taking someone out back after a guilty verdict and giving them the firing squad.

Did you read the article?