Prosecutors will seek the death penalty for the white supremacist who killed 10 Black people at a Buffalo supermarket.
Give him a job, make him work, and send the proceeds to the families of the victims. At least he will be somewhat useful then.
What if he kills again? How can one person pay enough for 10 lives?
removed by mod
That’s pretty much what happens in life imprisonment, and that’s what these ideologue clown shoes think is more humane. Not a single one of them knows what they’re talking about.
Despite what I’m about to write, I’m generally against the Death Penalty.
The reason we don’t do what you suggested is that it’s animalistic and inefficient. Think to yourself: would you be better off and contribute more to society if you:
A) Spent all your money feeding, housing, and securely containing a man incapable of reform for the next ten to eighty years on the failing premise that reform is somehow possible for him who will likely never be released.
B) Actually used limited resources on people who can be helped, and who want to be helped.
Emotions can be overwhelming and cause irrational decisions, not unlike the white supremacist who acted on hatred. Do not let yourself be emotional like him. At least, focus your energy and attention on things that matter.
It costs less to hold someone for life in prison than it does to carry out the death penalty, all things considered.
I suppose that’s fair, considering the cost of the shelter in an existing prison is negligible, but that higher cost for the sentence is really only the legal defence costs for people who rely on the state for defence and choose to fight the sentence. The cost of the executions themselves are much cheaper, and I think on average the executions probably would be as well as long as more of them accept the sentence or pay for their own attorneys than the number who fight it on the state’s expense.
The opposite could be true as well though, it could be vastly more expensive to try to execute them if everyone fights it on the state’s expense.
Think about what you’re saying… what good would this do now? You mutilate his body and let him recover then mutilate him again. What do we have now? One shooter with trauma who has been tortured and one heartless person (you) who tortured them.
Did that prevent any shootings in the future? Nope
Did it bring out the human in you? Nope
Did it help us economically save any money? Nope
Did it bring anyone back to life? Nope
Basically, in this scenario, you simply turn yourself into a criminal who probably deserves a similar punishment in that system that you’re criticizing…
And will that help reduce violent deaths at all in the future? A large number of shooters are just out to commit a mass murder-suicide. Who does this serve justice to? Or is this just to get people feeling like they’ve been “avenged”?
I know it’s a cliche, but it is a bit dumb to kill someone to show that killing is wrong.
Why waste resources on one who has proven themselves to be the worst kind of man? He won’t learn a lesson. He doesn’t deserve an opportunity to ever rejoin society. Your suggestion is to house, feed and provide medicine for this monster for the rest of his life. To give him what millions of Americans can not obtain. You want to reward his actions.
The death penalty is not revenge. It’s not a lesson.It should not be seen as some deterrent. It’s culling a sick animal so it can’t do any more harm to the rest of the population. It can be done quickly, humanely, and even cleanly though the cheapest method would make a small, containable mess.
Americans not being able to obtain housing and the rising homelessness does not mean we should employ capital punishment, which is an expensive and inhumane procedure where there is a chance to take away the life of those potentially innocent, not to mention that it doesn’t actually reduce or deter crime. In fact, it seems that places with more capital punishment have more violent crime.
Do you think it’s a waste of resources to even give him a trial? Death penalty trials are long and expensive and often cost more than lifelong incarceration. You might be okay with a low bar for having the government remove someone from society but I think the bar should be high, and the decision shouldn’t be done lightly. However, keeping that bar high also takes more resources so the issue isn’t as easy as you make it out to be.
I don’t necessarily disagree with the reasons behind your conclusion, but it costs more to execute a prisoner than to house them for life. The nature of the death penalty means that every appeal must be heard and fought through, which is one reason why it takes so long to kill them after conviction. All of those people involved in that process are thus being dragged away from other things they could be doing.
About the only time an execution occurs quickly is if the individual decides not to appeal. Rare, understandably. The other option would be to ignore the appeals process, and frankly we have already executed too many innocents for any person, even those who believe in the death penalty, to believe that would be justice.
In the US it usually three times more expensive to put someone to death than to incarcerate them for life
Wow today I learned!
There’s no good summary that I found in my five mins of research, and a lot of it came from
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org, which appears to be a very biased nonprofit against the death penalty.But the info seems consistent all around. It costs more because since it’s such a big deal for the state to kill somebody, the legal costs skyrocket dramatically. Hence, it’s more expense.
Again, 5 minutes of research. Somebody correct me. It still smells a bit funny if this cost is lifetime of the prisoner vs someone who has life in prison for multiple decades.
The costs come from years if not decades of appeals that are legally required after someone is sentenced to death, among other things like the cost of the chemicals used for lethal injection.
Factually, the anti death penalty advocates are correct about the expense argument, but it’s largely of their own doing because they’re the ones who imposed those expenses on the government by pushing for such laws. They literally largely made it a problem.
But do you have any research that shows it reduces or deters crime?
That is not and never has been the reason for capital punishment. The kind of people who should be executed are not doing the kind of crimes that are deterred. The point is to remove the individual who is not compatible with society.
Doesn’t it serve justice to the families and friends of the people who he has killed? I can’t imagine them feeling a sense of justice when their tax dollars are put to work to get this guy back into society.
I wouldn’t feel any sense of justice if my tax money went to killing people.
We will, though, and you will put up with it.
I live in Sweden. My tax money doesn’t go to any capital punishments because Sweden outlawed them in the 70’s (last known use was in 1910).
Good for you, there are 197 other countries in the world. You can keep pretending you’re better than everyone else while ignoring the governments of Nordic countries hide the truth behind the crimes their people suffer to keep up this image of perfection they project. The rest of the world knows the truth, though.
Either way, that’s pretty tangential to the death penalty unless your stance is “Well Sweden doesn’t have it so we’re better than you, nah nah nah nah nah” like that’s supposed to work on actual adults. 🤦
I don’t understand the connection between capital punishment and crime. could you please explain it to me? how does the death penalty deter crimes? are there some statistics that you could show me? thanks.
He doesn’t have to go back to society. Him being sent to prison for life is justice.
Costs money to pay for his living, food, room, guards, water, sewer plumbing, air, heat, AC
It costs a hell of a lot more to execute someone, believe it or not.
Edit: damn, y’all are some bloodthirsty motherfuckers.
Only because the methods employed are stupidly wasteful and overcomplicated. The process needs to be overhauled in a logical and pragmatic way. The problem with current means of execution is that feelings were brought into the equation in the first place.
Only time it costs more is when the cops loses a lawsuit for unloading their clips on an innocent black person
on an innocent
blackperson, sometimes also pet
Then allow executions within days with cheaper, more humane methods like bullets. The only reason it’s more expensive is because of you, and it should not be.
You sound like a member of a Jim Crow era lynch mob. Screw due process, he just looks guilty. Yeehaw!
And you know you don’t have a rational leg to stand on, so when called out on your shit, you do what any self-righteous, self-involved dipshit does: fall back to tired old stereotypes and meaningless insults.
Why in the world would you think acting that way will convince anyone of anything? Convince me to change my mind?
removed by mod
Speeding up executions means more innocent people will be wrongfully executed. How many innocent people are you willing to kill to make sure this this asshole fries?
Oh the fuck well, that’s the price you pay for living in a society. All societies require their sacrificial lambs in order to prop themselves up because no legal system is perfect nor capable of being so, but we still have to put the well-being of our community above those who threaten or wrong it whether we make mistakes or not. And we give the state the benefit of the doubt in such circumstances because we accept that it’s the only way a community can be functional and work without even WORSE sacrifices.
You’re gonna tell me that we can’t give life back to those we take it from knowing that’s just as true with people wrongfully convicted and thrown in prison for life – the people who you sentence to be raped, tortured, enslaved, and STILL murdered anyway because your selfish, entitled ass thinks your opinions are better than others. And you absolve yourself of responsibility for the extreme cruelty and suffering you cause by telling yourself, “Well at least they’re alive,” which is a cop-out.
It’s far more humane to execute someone quickly after a trial because it minimizes the convicted’s suffering, it’s far better for the safety of the community because you are getting rid of a known offender even if the odds they’re actually guilty aren’t 100% perfect, it’s much more morally conscionable than expecting the community and victims to live in fear of offenders and ultimately is the better, more moral way.
But you don’t understand that because you’re not emphasizing with anyone else, you only care about how you feel about death personally and that is 100% a you problem.
Yes, because he’s a fascist actively helping his cult to take over the country and can only be stopped with violence.
No one wants him dead to prove all killing is wrong, they want him dead because he is genocidal and a threat to the existence of everyone else. Don’t you bother trying to understand how other people think and feel, or do you think your arrogance and unwarranted sense of superiority over your opponents is what empathy is?
“Unwarranted sense of superiority” says the person who thinks that we as a society somehow have the right to choose to end someone’s life.
🤣 Oh, you’re so cute when you pretend your way of thinking is an axiom inherently better than others.
Communities DO have that right because they’re the community and they’re the ones who make the rules. There is no god or goddess dictating morality to us humans no matter how badly people want to pretend there is, there is only ourselves and nature, and we as the self-aware ones who invented morality have the right to make those choices because it’s OUR institution.
And not yours.
Right. Keep living in the shitty current world we’re in with that thinking.
We will, because that is the way reality is whether you want to accept it or not. Your god is NOT coming to save you because he is not real. He is a fictional character in a book.
Communities have the right to make those decisions because the well being of their constituents is in the balance. Humans are diverse, self-aware, and have free will, and they can actively choose to do helpful or destructive things whenever they want. That also means they have diverse interests, and those interests directly conflict with one another. A or not A. B or not B. And we can’t have both. That means communities have to make hard choices about whose needs and interests it is going to place above others, because logically it is impossible to make both happy. And given the whole point of a fucking community is to protect the best interests of its members, it’s those interests it has to prioritize above everything else.
This is why communities not only have the right to kill humans that threaten it, but have a responsibility to. Because its members have to be placed higher in importance to those who threaten or harm it for the community to survive.
This is the world we live in based on the laws of physics and evolution. It is NOT going to change just because you don’t like it.
Do what you tell every rape victim to do when they call you out on your obvious immoral shit: get over it and move on, honey, or the world will move on without you.
And yet another essay rofl told you that you love it!
Your god is NOT coming to save you because he is not real.
Sorry, could you stop for a moment and please explain to me who you think I am?
Like what’s this stuff about god and genocide? I’m an atheist.
Sorry but…
I want to write this in title, so please imagine me saying this in a REALLY LOUD VOICE just to make sure you don’t respond by jumping into a whole different topic, but what god?!? Where in my profile or my text did I ever say I believe in god? How did you come to this conclusion? Man, I think you’re like… confused.
Do what you tell every rape victim to do when they call you out on your obvious immoral shit: get over it and move on, honey, or the world will move on without you.
I am a rape victim myself. I was raped at age 15/16 by a medical professional. My parents didn’t believe me and the police told me to better not report it because as a girl I’d get into more trouble than it’s worth. It took me lots of therapy to overcome this trauma.
Again, who do you think you’re talking to? You seem to get everything about me wrong in every single post and I don’t understand what would motivate anyone to waste so much time being like this.
This is the world we live in based on the laws of physics and evolution. It is NOT going to change just because you don’t like it.
It’s not going to change if you do like it.
This is why communities not only have the right to kill humans that threaten it, but have a responsibility to.
Sounds like a pretense for human rights violations ROFL
removed by mod
you’re ok with putting a bullet in every rapists head aren’t you
btw your appeal to nature fallacy is showing
For the life of me, I just want to know where that rape crap came from. Like… At least they should have asked me first or checked my comment history to understand my view on rape yet they made the assumption and moved on. Ironically, I myself was raped as a teenager /: so congrats to that edgy SJW, they just did something dumb as fuck to a rape victim, big no no in SJW world.
Yes, that is what is moral. That’s why communities have the death penalty.
It also literally doesn’t matter if you want to accuse me of using a naturalistic fallacy or not, it’s reality whether you want to admit it or not.
All morality ultimately boils down to is our feelings, the community’s feelings, and what works in the real world and in the real world, you’re just wrong.
It’s up to you to put your ego and pride to the side and actually think about what I’m saying.
Now you think that your own moral outlook and beliefs are objective facts when they’re really not, and you think your axioms are shared by everyone when they are not. The world doesn’t revolve around you. You don’t dictate morality to us. We dictate it to you.
There are things that society can decide. That’s part of being a society. Sometimes it’s stupid, like men can’t wear women’s clothing. Sometimes it’s right, like you can’t be an unrepentant mass murderer and continue to live among us.
Going against basic human rights, that should never be anything anyone can decide.
On the contrary, this individual already made that choice.
I’m not pro-death penalty at all. Generally quite the opposite. Too many over-zealous prosecutors, too many shitty cops, etc. just trying to be “tough on crime”, close a case and save their jobs. However there have been instances where I don’t have a problem with it. The Nuremberg trials. Or maybe in instances where irrefutable, undeniable proof exists.
That said, I’d far, far prefer this person live in a hole for the rest of their life. Death is too easy an out, and IMO a life with no purpose, future, change, or hope is hell. They should get just that.
I’m glad you’re not pro death penalty, because it turns out that it doesn’t deter crime nor reduce violence, nor saves money, nor has any practical value whatsoever, doing more harm than it does good
removed by mod
removed by mod
We are all meat popsicles. Either way, I could care less. War, what is it good for?
What is a justified consequence for someone that killed people just going about their normal lives? Do the families impacted by this tragedy have any input?
i saw on cnn the son of one of the mothers killed said that this was appropriate
I bet that son would do it himself if he had the opportunity…
I’d really like for us to move towards a restorative justice system instead of the punitive one we use now. In my mind, that would look something
-
Seeking input from the people who were impacted by the crime about what would help them move past or recover from the crime.
-
Separating the perpetrator from society at large while providing the resources to prepare them to reenter society when they no longer pose a threat.
-
Even those perpetrators who could never be reintroduced to society safely still be treated humanely and with respect.
I can’t remember which off the top of my head, but there’s a country (Scandinavian if my memory is accurate) that provides prisoners with small homes (still within the confines of a prison-like facility that separates them from society at large) which they have to take care of. I believe they even have jobs that let them contribute to society, and they receive counseling and all that as well. When they’re eventually released, they know how to maintain a home, keep a job, etc, so they’re well-prepared to reintegrate with society.
-
From Wikipedia
Motive Anti-black racism White supremacy Belief in the Great Replacement and white genocide conspiracy theories[6][7][8]
A political wing of the USA is responsible for this
It’s not good to report the number of deaths in headlines without humanizing the victims in some way. It’s better to list each individual name in the article itself.
This dude probably thought he was setting a number score that would put him in the spotlight, but he didn’t realize he’s just another tally for the Executioner.
I don’t like the death penalty and how inequally it’s applied, but in this case I say we decrease the surplus population.
Rest in piss, asshole.
Just kill the useless and dangerous folk and it’ll work out in the benefit of society.
The only danger that creeps in here is ‘who gets to decide who is useless and dangerous?’ because I wear glasses and don’t feel like being on the receiving end of a Khmer Rouge style microcide.
Good for you, it’s not glasses this month, it’s the hearing aids that indicate “useless” status and crutches for dangerous because you can use them as weapons.
Who will be deemed useless and dangerous?
Who will have this power to judge?
Will they be responsible, or corruptible?Me. I see no problem with this. All of me in favor, say aye. Aye. The ayes have it, motion passed.
Will you still have no problem with this if you’re deemed useless?
Let me check. Do I deem myself useless. No. Looks like we’re good to go.
Exactly. I said that to make the death penalty look bad, which it is.
What alternative do you have for people actively detrimental to societies such as serial killers and child rapists?
Reform, and if they continue to pose a risk for society keep them in a prison/psychiatric ward until they die or are reformed.
Look at how Norway handles Breivik for example. That guy is a proper monster. But he still gets treated according to human rights, cause he is still human. We as a society should be better and more rational than the monsters that we condemn.
It’s pretty easy to not-murder. I’ve been doing it my whole life. Even went vegan!
You know that life in prison means they usually don’t go out to kill and rape again, right?
You know that most rapists never actually see a day in court, let alone are jailed, and rape actually does not net people life sentences, only a few years at most, right?
But who needs facts or to take anyone else’s feelings into consideration when your personal feelings are so much more important than the rest of the planet’s and the women you subjugate with your shit?
-
I didn’t say that rape gets you life in prison, I said that life in prison means you don’t get to rape and murder anymore
-
It is a travesty that those rapists who do get caught only serve a few years, but the death penalty is proven ineffective at reducing crime rates. Nobody would be helped by executing rapists instead of just imprisoning them for life
-
That most rapists never see a day in court means that the death penalty wouldn’t help anyway
Instead of killing up to five innocent people per hundred executed, how about we just… Lock them up? Then if it comes out later that they actually didn’t set that fire that killed their family, they can be released from prison instead of the state just pretending they didn’t end someone’s life for no reason
-
There’s this thing we have called ‘prison.’
Should we tackle the mentally inferior and physically infirm next?
If you kill the man, his suffering is limited. If you lock him away in a supermax for the rest of his long days, his suffering is a thousandfold.
The suffering should never be the point. It never gives meaningful satisfaction to the bereaved and affected and studies support this.
It is only human and normal to burn with anger and a desire to see monsters such as this torn apart and made to suffer.
This is part of our animal mind that views tribal justice and the dubious ‘wisdom of the crowds’ as absolute, and most of the fuckdamn reason we’ve spent so long learning how to live around millions of each other is in part giving up these outdated and unhelpful social traits.
In the long run, from the cultural perspective, no amount of his suffering will bring his victims back, and no amount of suffering will convince him that he was morally wrong.
So execute him, and quickly, and spend the money otherwise that would have covered his upkeep on free food for single parents.
deleted by creator
I’m pretty sure they were suggesting that we get rid of the appeals process to make it quicker and cheaper
Dammit, you were so close. Quick executions are how you turn the 1-5% innocent kill rate up to a 10-50%.
You were so close! The first four paragraphs were a perfect argument against the death penalty. And then you somehow turned around to argue for it in the last one?
The logical conclusion from your argument isn’t a quick death, it’s trying to reform offenders, no matter how heinous their crimes. If that’s not possible, keep them locked away, but treat them humanely and keep trying.
Sure, but there’s also cost to the state to be considered.
That said, the common methods for execution used today are surprisingly expensive.
That said, the common methods for execution used today are surprisingly expensive.
It doesn’t have to be.
I believe the saw movies had some good techniques
Isn’t it more expensive to execute someone vs a life sentence?
We should do another penal colony. Like Venus or something.
Riddick looks smug with his weird sunglasses.
On a tangential note: I propose we ship the top 1% wealthiest people to Mars and make them colonize it.
We can send all the life sentence and death row convicts with them.
Also experimental. No one wants to make the drugs used to end life so states are buying expired product and shady drugs from Indian compound pharmacies.
deleted by creator
Why is there any value in making someone suffer for the sake of suffering?
If he’s dead he’s dead. There are plenty of evil people that are dead and I don’t wish them to be alive just so they can suffer.
That’s seems worse than killing them.
Just make sure to place him in a cell near/with black prisoners and give him a sandwich board like one from die hard 3 with “I hate n*****” on it too.b
Death penalty bad, mop justice good
Mop justice, that’s how Jeffrey Dahmer died isn’t it?
A) I’m certain he’ll advertise it all on his own. Probably fall right in with a Nazi prison gang.
B) I don’t think the prisons are intentionally stoking racial tensions. Makes things dangerous for the guards and invites attention they don’t want.
The only issue with the death penalty is the potential to execute the innocent. There is no danger of that here. I don’t want to share the planet with this racist prick.
That’s not “the only issue,” you fucking ghoul. It’s a barbaric practice and has no place in a civilized society.
I don’t think it’s barbaric at all. Hell, if anything, making people care for this asshole for 50+ years is barbaric. There is no rehabilitation for this guy. There is no way he becomes a productive member of society.
If even long-term KKK members can be rehabilitated then so can this kid whose brain hasn’t even fully developed.
I want to believe that, the goal should be rehabilitation somehow. That said, at this moment in time when we don’t have good rehabilitation implementations, I find this turn of events acceptable based on the crime committed.
True, in most countries the prison system is crap. I just don’t like when people paint other people as monsters, no matter what they’ve done. Rehabilitation to me doesn’t necessarily equal them being free ever again. Just means that they’ve changed as a person and truly regret their actions.
What about the families of these 10 victims? They deserve justice more than this kid deserves freedom. I’m not saying he can’t be rehabilitated. I am saying that it is very injust to let this kid to ever have a free life after he ended the lives of 10 people.
What makes you think the families will all agree with you that this is what the killer deserves?
I mean I’m not 100 percent that all of them would want it, but it’s what the families want in the majority of these cases. Anytime you see a murderer come up for appeal you usually see family or friends of the victim in interviews saying how they don’t want that to happen.
How often do you actually see what victims’ families say when murderers are put on parole? For me it’s occasionally when the news reports on it. I don’t think we can say what the majority want.
So what, you think you can just let a mass murderer walk the streets again because he convinced someone he’s rehabilitated?
Even those long term KKK members didn’t kill people.
The only civilised country that still allows it is America. Take from that what you want…
What’s your definition of civilized?
Is Japan uncivilized?
If they kill people in the name of the law, yes.
The other issue is that it quite frequently costs exponentially more to administer the death penalty due to years of appeals. I’m not sure how that would work in this case, since as you said, it’s apparent that the defendant is guilty.
I mean, given the choice of paying for him to have 3 squares and a place to sleep, I’d rather pay a little more to be rid of him.
It’s not “a little more” to prosecute a death penalty case. It’s a lot more depending on the state. I strongly recommend reading the link but here are some snippets from it.
A 2003 legislative audit in Kansas found that the estimated cost of a death penalty case was 70% more than the cost of a comparable non-death penalty case. Death penalty case costs were counted through to execution (median cost $1.26 million). Non-death penalty case costs were counted through to the end of incarceration (median cost $740,000).
In Tennessee, death penalty trials cost an average of 48% more than the average cost of trials in which prosecutors seek life imprisonment.
In Maryland death penalty cases cost 3 times more than non-death penalty cases, or $3 million for a single case.
In California the current system costs $137 million per year; it would cost $11.5 million for a system without the death penalty.
Now consider that there is a very strong agreement among experts that the death penalty does not serve as a deterrent to other criminals.
That means that the extra expense of pursuing the death penalty has no effect on increasing public safety since the convicted criminal, whether they are executed or are spending the rest of their life in prison, is not a risk to the public. Finally, all that extra money spent on death penalty trials is money that could be better spent on measures that really would improve public safety such as reducing poverty or improving education.
Why do you people present this is as an answer to the previous statement? EVERYONE knows this at this point, it doesn’t change thee previous statement in the slightest. It’s like when people smugly respond “that’s not how free speech works”…no, not according to everyone who prefers to limit it, it ain’t. You’re rebutting someone’s principles with regulations made by people don’t care for that specific philosophy and saying more about yourself than you think.
I don’t care. That prick has forfeited his right to keep living. That’s the bottom line. I would rather pay $3 million for him to die that $1 million to keep feeding, housing, and otherwise caring for him.
And face it. You present a false choice. The money would not be spent on education or reducing poverty. It would be used to give the rich larger tax cuts first.
If it were up to me, pricks like this should the tortured to death. Call me ruthless of you want, but what else does the guy who decided to kill innocent people because they are black?
I get that that is your preference. Personally, I would choose to spend the money where it would do some good rather than just slaking some people’s need for revenge.
What on earth makes you think that is where politicians would choose to spend the money? Heck, we could spend that now and don’t.
If you could point out even one benefit to the death penalty in our modern world, I’d be willing to consider it. There is none. Not on a moral, societal, safety, or fiscal level. There is certainly harm caused by it, not least of which is the belief that it’s okay to take someone’s life for any other reason than the immediate risk of life and health of another person. Some people think it’s okay to kill 10, some think it’s okay to have the government kill 1.
For many of us, simply knowing we will no longer be sharing this planet with them is enough. That’s a moral and societal benefit most definitely. He who deprived others of life gets deprived life themselves.
Hell, if nothing else, the death penalty can save a trial by providing leverage for a plea. If you are guaranteed life imprisonment, why not force a trial? But if you might be executed in such a clear cut case, maybe you plead guilty on exchange for life imprisonment to save your life. Save victims having to testify.
The bottom line for me is that this guy is pure evil. The cops shouldn’t have taken him alive to begin with.
There is a moral cost for treating life casually. When police kill a suspect who shoplifted $100 from a store and engineer some flimsy excuse to claim self defense when they flee or use excessively brutal force when arresting a drug user and possible petty counterfeiter isn’t so surprising when we have the public advocating for summary police justice rather than doing what they can to uphold the rule of law, which does not include gunning down criminals in the street.
Also, a whopping 2.3% of federal criminal cases go to trial already. So your other justification for capital punishment is that number is just too high?
As a poor, I would rather let him rot in prison and have that money go to making my life materially easier to live
His appeals will be focused on procedure, rather than facts. Pretty much the go-to defense strategy when a suspect is caught red handed. If you can’t argue the facts of the case, try to get the facts thrown out on technicality (like maybe the police mishandled evidence so it’s not admissible anymore,) or try to minimize the person’s crime as much as possible. Try to get the sentence reduced, try to downplay the convict’s actions, emphasize how much they have changed, etc…
Basically just damage control. Accept that you aren’t going to come out of it unscathed, so just work to mitigate the damage instead of trying to avoid it altogether.
Which is why you execute them immediately, not 20-30 years later. I don’t want to hear about innocent people in jail that long, I don’t even want to hear about guilty people in jail very long. Just kill em and move on regardless, it’s really less cruel.
Get your background here:
Let him rot in prison. Abolish capital punishment!
Maybe the death sentence would be the better option than prison. Not like we are on par with other peers with prisons. Either way I could care less about this one specific case.
The reactionary in me thinks “life in solidarity confinement without the chance of parole.”
The me in me says he needs a long time in some sort of rehabilitation program. As much of a monster as he is, he’s a bit of a victim. May he be studied so that we can pinpoint and prevent others from following his path.
They are so much better at this stuff in other developed countries. The US prison system is all about punishment where others focus a lot more on rehabilitation and prevention.
(Not so) fun fact: The US has 5 percent of the world’s population and 25 percent of the world’s prison population.
The United States system has financial incentives for low police/prevention and long harsh prison sentences, due to cities paying for police but counties/state paying for prisons. Cities can cut taxes and police and pass the cost onto the county or state.
Ideally you’d want quick guaranteed consequences for breaking the law. We have the complete opposite, and when we do catch you, we impose a huge penalty to make up for all times we probably didnt catch you before.
What if I have problems with both capital punishment and the current prison system?
Abolish capital punishment, improve prisons.
Guy kills ten black people and Lemmy comments are all ‘yeah but death sentence and prison are wrong, maybe we should get him a nice job and somewhere to live, I’ll pop round to massage his feet once a week…’
Capital punishment is always wrong.
One death penalty still has a lot of wiggle room given there were ten lives taken. Hope justice is served here.
No civilised society executes it’s citizens. A lifetime of reflection is adequate.
Yes they do, because they value protecting their people over appeasing your sensibilities.
And don’t even bother wasting time arguing with me; I already know exactly what you’re going to do – you’re going to bitch to the high heavens with talking point after talking point after talking point, and you’re going to do this because you don’t care about anything other than the way articles like this make you feel. You’re just going to be irrational and not listen, so don’t bother.
Why are you wasting everyone’s time responding if you’re not here to discuss?
Why are you? I explicitly told you I’m not here to discuss, that you’re just wrong and there’s no convincing you because you don’t want to hear the truth. What discussion is there to be had? You just want to bully and guilt-trip people like me into submitting to your opinion and it’s not going to work. Now get out of my inbox, and out of my life.
do you need help finding the block button?
Nope
Oh, me? I don’t care. You’re the one who wrote a whole paragraph about not responding to you.
It’s a bit difficult to pull off a mass shooting from a prison cell, no?
Edit: It’s hilarious you clowns think this is a hot take.
I was actually going to ask about your grandma’s oatmeal cookie recipe.
deleted by creator
Yes there is. You make the process reversible, people then aren’t condemned to death if there is an error.
The level of conformist doublethink here is insane.
