OT The Death Penalty

[SharpeScooterShooter]

It's not worth it to me. That power can too easily be abused. There is no reason to kill them.

And there is no way to do it cheaper than keeping them alive, while also allowing them their right to due process.

What you are suggesting can't happen. It just can't. And we'd gain nothing if it could.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Are you reading the response you get to this? It doesn't seem like you are.
Yes there is a reason to kill them. So it doesn't costs as much.
Before you claim it costs less, read the thread first please. Its been addressed. As we as this concern of yours you keep claiming about wrongfully accused.
Listen. Some of us feel that if someone has been caught read handed committing a mass murder, their life should be ended quickly. No one that i had read said anything about wrongfully convicted. AGAIN we are only discussing clear cut, black aNd white, guilty murderers. That is the only thing i see people referring to. Why you keep taking those words and spinning them fore whatever purposes is, well, that's on you.
if a person is gunning people down, is tackled and taken into custody and convicted, some of us feel they should die. If you want to try to make us feel guilty of that thought because there are some wrongfully convicted people over our countries history and pull some moral superiority card on us/me. Have at it. I stand by my claim that some people deserve nothing more than a quick death.

Because even in those cases those people have the right to due process. That makes killing them more expensive than jailing them for life.

The only exception I can think of is if they want to die. But even then, I'm not sure if that would be cheaper.

And I don't care if your opinion is that it can be done. My opinion is that it can't. Because it's never been done. We currently execute innocent people. We currently still find people on death row who are innocent.

Until we can prove that's not happening I'm not going to support government having the power to kill people. And even if we could prove that wasn't happening, the cost of supporting them for life wouldn't be worth giving government that power anyway. There aren't enough mass murders to cost each of us a penny per year.

I'm sorry if that bothers you.

 

[Phatguysrule]

It can abused yes, and like all power in the government it needs to be checked and balanced.

Or just removed, since mistakes mean innocent death, and it doesn't actually help society at all. I don't think blood lust is good justification.

Self defense? Absolutely.

 

[Phatguysrule]

It is my opinion. Correct.
And that opinion is supported by that fact that we find multiple people on death row who are innocent every year. Every country with the death penalty kills innocent people.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

Because even in those cases those people have the right to due process. That makes killing them more expensive than jailing them for life.

The only exception I can think of is if they want to die. But even then, I'm not sure if that would be cheaper.

And I don't care if your opinion is that it can be done. My opinion is that it can't. Because it's never been done. We currently execute innocent people. We currently still find people on death row who are innocent.

Until we can prove that's not happening I'm not going to support government having the power to kill people. And even if we could prove that wasn't happening, the cost of supporting them for life wouldn't be worth giving government that power anyway. There aren't enough mass murders to cost each of us a penny per year.

I'm sorry if that bothers you.

Doesn't bother me at all. Im not the one trying to press my morals on others with statements like others opinions are concerning.
I find it funny that you say you don't care about my opinion…but type as if Im supposed to care aBout yours? Others are entitled to their opinion without you trying to hover some moral superiority complex over them you know..

many things have never been done. Doesn't mean it CANT be done.
Cant cross the ocean. Cant circle the planet. Cant go to the moon.

maybe, just maybe, this can be done too,if actually tried instead of just shot down as it cant happen because it never has???
Laws, governments can all adapt and change.

 

[Chris Craig]

It is my opinion. Correct.
And that opinion is supported by that fact that we find multiple people on death row who are innocent every year. Every country with the death penalty kills innocent people.

I get that. The last thing I want or anyone here wants is innocent people going to prison and being put to death.

We need a better system as it is. There can be a better system where mass murders in cases the evidence is irrefutable can be put to death faster if they are sentenced to it.

Yeah, they have the right to appeal, but an appeal for a person who is on camera murdering people is probably not going to change things for them. That said, put those appeals first on dockets. Get those cases done with.

If there is DNA evidence or other evidence that can be refuted put them down the calendar until it becomes certain and they have exhausted their appeals.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

I get that. The last thing I want or anyone here wants is innocent people going to prison and being put to death.

We need a better system as it is. There can be a better system where mass murders in cases the evidence is irrefutable can be put to death faster if they are sentenced to it.

Yeah, they have the right to appeal, but an appeal for a person who is on camera murdering people is probably not going to change things for them. That said, put those appeals first on dockets. Get those cases done with.

If there is DNA evidence or other evidence that can be refuted put them down the calendar until it becomes certain and they have exhausted their appeals.

There ARE alternative options/potential answers for those not locked into “what is”

 

[riverman]

I’m glad that both you and your wife weren’t shot.

Please don’t take this the wrong way, but you’re also a victim of this.

Just because you are physically unharmed, doesn’t mean that you weren’t harmed by this.

Please talk to a professional about this, you don’t have to process this alone.

Look after yourself and your wife, and stay safe.

Great advice and post!

 

[Phatguysrule]

I get that. The last thing I want or anyone here wants is innocent people going to prison and being put to death.

We need a better system as it is. There can be a better system where mass murders in cases the evidence is irrefutable can be put to death faster if they are sentenced to it.

Yeah, they have the right to appeal, but an appeal for a person who is on camera murdering people is probably not going to change things for them. That said, put those appeals first on dockets. Get those cases done with.

If there is DNA evidence or other evidence that can be refuted put them down the calendar until it becomes certain and they have exhausted their appeals.

I'm all for expediting government processes, no doubt.

But I also don't believe we can get seperation on what is and isn't an open and shut case. There are simply too many ways to slow play it. Ways that are there for good reason, and prevent more innocent people from being executed.

I think getting where people are saying they want to get will result in more innocent people dying. Not fewer.

 

[riverman]

Or just removed, since mistakes mean innocent death, and it doesn't actually help society at all. I don't think blood lust is good justification.

Self defense? Absolutely.

If you shoot my grandchild in school and I in turn shoot you...that's not my bloodlust, it's karma for your bloodlust....the murderer harbors bloodlust...not the one who stopped the murderer. I have no bloodlust but in turn I have no tolerance for the bloodlust of killers. According to your theory you should never have a need for a gun because the person you shoot may be innocent until a long drawn out court case convicts them....you are ready to make that decision in a split second if you are armed for defensive purposes....no different from me shooting someone who kills an unarmed child. You have trained yourself to kill someone who threatens you or your loved ones....however you seem to think that's safer than a judicial system or less prone to mistaken judgements? I think that's a clear double standard.

 

[Chris Craig]

I'm all for expediting government processes, no doubt.

But I also don't believe we can get seperation on what is and isn't an open and shut case. There are simply too many ways to slow play it. Ways that are there for good reason, and prevent more innocent people from being executed.

I think getting where people are saying they want to get will result in more innocent people dying. Not fewer.

Sure we can. For instance, A murder case where there is video of the person charged and convicted killing people vs say a Murder case where DNA is the main source of evidence.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Sure we can. For instance, A murder case where there is video of the person charged and convicted killing people vs say a Murder case where DNA is the main source of evidence.

Ok, so then Trump would have been within his rights to kill Michael Reinoehl. So nothing wrong with how that was handled.

There was video evidence...

Sorry, killing civilians is not a power a democratic government needs, IMO. In reality it will always result in innocent people being killed by the government, and there is no appreciable benefit to society in allowing it.

 

[calvin natt]

I do think there could be a “special circumstances” situation where we fast track someone to death. If they are captured on video, have multiple witnesses, evidence, and/or admit to it (school shooters fall into this category) let’s kill them.

 

[Phatguysrule]

If you shoot my grandchild in school and I in turn shoot you...that's not my bloodlust, it's karma for your bloodlust....the murderer harbors bloodlust...not the one who stopped the murderer. I have no bloodlust but in turn I have no tolerance for the bloodlust of killers. According to your theory you should never have a need for a gun because the person you shoot may be innocent until a long drawn out court case convicts them....you are ready to make that decision in a split second if you are armed for defensive purposes....no different from me shooting someone who kills an unarmed child. You have trained yourself to kill someone who threatens you or your loved ones....however you seem to think that's safer than a judicial system or less prone to mistaken judgements? I think that's a clear double standard.

First, I'm not the government. Second, I said it's totally acceptable when under threat or in self defense.

In responding with lethal force to an active threat you are doing a public good and defending yourself.

Once the suspect has been apprehended the threat is gone. There is no longer a need for animal instincts. There is no benefit to society in encouraging the government killing of civilians.

 

[Phatguysrule]

I do think there could be a “special circumstances” situation where we fast track someone to death. If they are captured on video, have multiple witnesses, evidence, and/or admit to it (school shooters fall into this category) let’s kill them.

I don't see what we gain by doing this. The person is no threat in jail. Why do we want government to have this power?

 

[calvin natt]

I don't seem what we gain by doing this. The person is no threat in jail. Why do we want government to have this power?

Why clutter up jails and feed them forever? And if punishment is supposed to be a deterrent maybe these quick kills will send a message. Too many think jail is better than their fucked up lives. Let’s move on from Dylan Roof and Nicholas Cruz etc.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

I do think there could be a “special circumstances” situation where we fast track someone to death. If they are captured on video, have multiple witnesses, evidence, and/or admit to it (school shooters fall into this category) let’s kill them.

I agree with you!

This didnt cause a cataclysm in the universe, did it?

 

[Phatguysrule]

Why clutter up jails and feed them forever? And if punishment is supposed to be a deterrent maybe these quick kills will send a message. Too many think jail is better than their fucked up lives. Let’s move on from Dylan Roof and Nicholas Cruz etc.

Most of these mass murders are going for suicide by cop. That, or they are going for the notoriety of it. And executions would play right into that, by making it a more compelling story.

I would submit that the better solution would be to let nonviolent offenders out of prison than to encourage government to kill civilians. Seems like we'd get way more bang for the buck, without the threat of innocent loss of life and without having our government accustomed to killing the population.

There are only a very few murderers who would even qualify for the very stringent limits being applied... It wouldn't even save us a penny per person per year as a country.

This just doesn't make logical sense in my mind.

 

[Chris Craig]

Ok, so then Trump would have been within his rights to kill Michael Reinoehl. So nothing wrong with how that was handled.

There was video evidence...

Sorry, killing civilians is not a power a democratic government needs, IMO. In reality it will always result in innocent people being killed by the government, and there is no appreciable benefit to society in allowing it.

Trump killed Reinoehl?

No. Reinoehl should have had a trial. The agents that killed him were wrong.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Trump killed Reinoehl?

No. Reinoehl should have had a trial. The agents that killed him were wrong.

Trump ordered them to kill him.

 

[Chris Craig]

Trump ordered them to kill him.

That should definitely all be looked into.

 

[tlongII]

Reinoehl was a pos and deserved to be shot.

 

[calvin natt]

Most of these mass murders are going for suicide by cop. That, or they are going for the notoriety of it. And executions would play right into that, by making it a more compelling story.

I would submit that the better solution would be to let nonviolent offenders out of prison than to encourage government to kill civilians. Seems like we'd get way more bang for the buck, without the threat of innocent loss of life and without having our government accustomed to killing the population.

There are only a very few murderers who would even qualify for the very stringent limits being applied... It wouldn't even save us a penny per person per year as a country.

This just doesn't make logical sense in my mind.

We need to do both. Get non violent out. Get murderers who pass the “fast track” phase a bullet to the head. Make prisons places that are both an unpleasant punishment but ALSO a rehab and life improvement facility. They should work FIVE days a week, supervised, cleaning up roads, freeways, building fences or tiny homes, speaking to kids, something. None of them should be sitting in a jail cell all day.

 

[Phatguysrule]

That should definitely all be looked into.

We definitely try to look into all of the innocent people we allow our government to kill.

Sanctioned execution of innocent prisoners could be ended tomorrow with no negative impact to any of our lives.

Such an easy problem to solve.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Reinoehl was a pos and deserved to be shot.

It's possible, but we'll never know that now.

 

[tlongII]

It's possible, but we'll never know that now.

I know it.

 

[Phatguysrule]

We need to do both. Get non violent out. Get murderers who pass the “fast track” phase a bullet to the head. Make prisons places that are both an unpleasant punishment but ALSO a rehab and life improvement facility. They should work FIVE days a week, supervised, cleaning up roads, freeways, building fences or tiny homes, speaking to kids, something. None of them should be sitting in a jail cell all day.

I definitely think convicted murderers should be sitting in a cell all day. Aside from exercise outside in the secured yard.

People rotating back out to society could do the cleanup jobs, for sure.

 

[Phatguysrule]

I know it.

You want to believe that. From what I saw it looked like self defense.

I would have been interested in the trial.

I expect our law enforcement to be better than that. Which is why I am opposed to law enforcement killing civilians except in self defense, or an active threat situation.

 

[Phatguysrule]

There's a benefit to killing a killer and personally, I think the margin for error is way higher with armed private citizens than with law enforcement and by the way....Whitey Bulger the Irish mafia don just got murdered by 3 guys in prison...if you think prison is a safe haven, you're quite mistaken....people are killed in prisons all the time. Animal instincts one might say would cause you to acquire weapons in the first place. The only way to justify your stance would be to not own a weapon that could kill someone. You might by your own admission, make a mistake.... plenty have.

My stance is that defending oneself is fine. Killing people who are not a threat is not fine. People in jail are not a threat unless the jail allows them to be.

You claim there is a benefit, but fail to mention what that might be.

This is not complicated, as much as you seem to want it to be.

 

[Phatguysrule]

I'm not fucking talking about killing people who are not a threat..that's not the topic here....people in jail are absolutely a threat...people with weapons are also absolutely a threat.

People in jail are not a threat to society. Let's be real.

If murderers in jail kill other murderers that's far better than the government sanctioning the killing. But it should be limited by keeping murderers who are deemed a threat in solitary confinement.

I would absolutely support that. Long before I will ever support government sanctioned executions.