Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We kill people for war, self-defense and babies but you have a problem in ending cold killers that can't be rehabilitated in society?
I don't think the government should kill people for any of those things either. Maybe war, if there were an existential threat to the country, i.e. something that hasn't happened in at least 70 years.
I guess if the government decided people who don't wear masks during a pandemic are cold-blooded killers, you would still be in favor of the death penalty?
Is it cheaper to have the death penalty or life with no possibility of parole? It’s obvious that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent, so is it cheaper? If not, what’s the benefit?
I don't think the government should kill people for any of those things either. Maybe war, if there were an existential threat to the country, i.e. something that hasn't happened in at least 70 years.
I guess if the government decided people who don't wear masks during a pandemic are cold-blooded killers, you would still be in favor of the death penalty?
They won't, and if they do then I will simply be in favor of the death penalty for the government officials who are deciding that.
Is it cheaper to have the death penalty or life with no possibility of parole? It’s obvious that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent, so is it cheaper? If not, what’s the benefit?
You're asking this as if our justice system is not irredeemably broken and nonsensical as it currently stands. Or are you one of those people that believe the justice system in this country actually works?
There's no reason why the death penalty should cost more than LWOP. Letting killers sit for decades and decades before we carry out their sentence makes no sense. Yet here we are. And the death penalty is actually the only proven 100% effective deterrent, because last time I checked an executed individual can never possibly hurt anyone else again....
The most heinous crimes are often committed by people with mental illness, and our system as it exists today does not prosecute these people.
In many cases it is hard, if not impossible, to have incontrovertible evidence. We live in a time where anything can be claimed to be falsified, a lie, etc. The country is in a sad state.
As a practical matter this is a small percentage of the prison population, and IMO we have bigger fish to fry at this time.
Many of those released, should never have been released. Most criminals are repeat offenders, over and over.
This is the most serious problem with life-imprisonment. Somehow convicted criminals manage to get released back into society and commit more crime. With the death penalty, there is no recidivism.
You're asking this as if our justice system is not irredeemably broken and nonsensical as it currently stands. Or are you one of those people that believe the justice system in this country actually works?
There's no reason why the death penalty should cost more than LWOP. Letting killers sit for decades and decades before we carry out their sentence makes no sense. Yet here we are. And the death penalty is actually the only proven 100% effective deterrent, because last time I checked an executed individual can never possibly hurt anyone else again....
And an innocent man wrongly convicted and swiftly executed stays very dead. Unless you think that we can go back to a time of rapid executions, which isn’t going to happen, executions will take decades and arguably cost more than life w/o parole. The problem with absolutely no death penalty though is what do you do if a convicted killer murders a guard or another inmate.
And the states that have the highest murder rates also have the biggest black populations. And as you know, black people commit 50% or more of all murders, while being around 14% of the population.
2nd reply?
Here is my question for you. Why do you think the death penalty isn't much of a deterrent for a relatively substantial number of individuals in the most murderous states in America?
Is it cheaper to have the death penalty or life with no possibility of parole? It’s obvious that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent, so is it cheaper? If not, what’s the benefit?
Cheaper the death penalty unless you view victims and future victims like unborn babies, worthless to you liberals.
Death penalty is 100% deterrent. The M.F. won't kill again and any fool can try their footsteps and see how it ends up. Not a guard, not some poor government medical or dental employee, some public defender or some poor inmate or kill to try to escape.
You put a killer that calculated their murders especially against children and elderly and tried to get away with it that crossed the point of no return and put him life in prison in a brutal environment is like a ticking time bomb at taxpayer's expense . What is the liberal purpose here? to rehabilitate and put them back in society at taxpayers expense? or make him nice in prison and a role model in Oz until he dies of overdose or killing himself or somebody else killing him ?
Serial killers are like war criminals, we don't rehabilitate them. We put them to sleep and move on. We own it to the victims and out brave soldiers that fought in wars and never came back that paid the ultimate price are not worth less than a killer and We shouldn't lose 1 sleep over them.
You're not the one choosing who dies, the government is. Do you trust the government that much?
There's usually a huge overlap between "I don't trust the government", "I want a smaller government", and "I hope they fry this guy"
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanJuanStar
Serial killers are like war criminals, we don't rehabilitate them. We put them to sleep and move on. We own it to the victims and out brave soldiers that fought in wars and never came back that paid the ultimate price are not worth less than a killer and We shouldn't lose 1 sleep over them.
You bring up an interesting point about war. Soldiers who have killed dozens or even hundreds of people are allowed to live among us out in society. They aren't considered dangerous but a woman who kills her abusive husband is. Why is one okay but not the other?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
