Here is my cheaper, better way. Right 10 minutes after the verdict is given, the convict is taken next door to an execution chamber where they are GUNNED DOWN. Super fast and cheap. We will bill other criminals for the bullets.
Why do we even keep them alive years after they are sentenced? What is the point? What purpose does this serve? WHO BENEFITS FROM THIS?
A) Not everyone in jail is guilty. There is forensics science now. Verdicts based on DNA is fairly new in the age of crime solving.
B) We are a civilization.
C) Sometimes there are still witnesses and questions to be resolved.
D) The small percentage of people that were wrongly accused.
Your loaded question is way too broad. Change “the convict” to “w/o a doubt pedo, serial murderer or mass shooter” then I agree to those being gunned down or even set on fire b/c that’s even cheaper.
Well if we have those modern methods, then that just means we are even more sure that a convicted person is guilty. Also, it's a fallacy to claim that a civilization is only civilized if they abolish capital punishment. What's the proof for that? This stupid idea is what lead to islamic terrorists stabbing people and getting away with 6 months. But I agree with setting them on fire!
Yes and frankly no, in a perfect world criminals would be convicted of exactly the right crime. Sometime law enforcement has a criminal and they try to find a crime that will end in conviction and prison time.
It's not like the movies or TV where the guilty are wrapped up in an hour. The worst criminal situation I was ever in was for a crime I did not commit. Bad lawyer, bad advice and I ended up really close to doing time for a traffic ticket. Not DWI a left turn through a yellow light. Basically I was young and poor.
we are talking about proven cases. not an "maybe he did , maybe he didnt" case. if big mike just fucked little billy up the asshole then slit his throat? execute that pile of shit. immediately
Because leftists lobbied successfully to make the process more expensive, so they could then argue to get rid of the death penalty because it was too expensive.
The issue is the long period of time enables for a lot of court battles. However, there are cases where people have been wrongly convicted. My analysis of the system is that if the country believes in innocent until proven guilty and the right to appeal then that belief has a cost that society will burden. Just end of the life of someone right afterwards doesn’t make a society Nobel, I think for the former does though.
Here is my cheaper, better way. Right 10 minutes after the verdict is given, the convict is taken next door to an execution chamber where they are GUNNED DOWN. Super fast and cheap. We will bill other criminals for the bullets.
Why do we even keep them alive years after they are sentenced? What is the point? What purpose does this serve? WHO BENEFITS FROM THIS?
A) Not everyone in jail is guilty. There is forensics science now. Verdicts based on DNA is fairly new in the age of crime solving. B) We are a civilization. C) Sometimes there are still witnesses and questions to be resolved. D) The small percentage of people that were wrongly accused. Your loaded question is way too broad. Change “the convict” to “w/o a doubt pedo, serial murderer or mass shooter” then I agree to those being gunned down or even set on fire b/c that’s even cheaper.
Well if we have those modern methods, then that just means we are even more sure that a convicted person is guilty. Also, it's a fallacy to claim that a civilization is only civilized if they abolish capital punishment. What's the proof for that? This stupid idea is what lead to islamic terrorists stabbing people and getting away with 6 months. But I agree with setting them on fire!
Yes and frankly no, in a perfect world criminals would be convicted of exactly the right crime. Sometime law enforcement has a criminal and they try to find a crime that will end in conviction and prison time.
It's not like the movies or TV where the guilty are wrapped up in an hour. The worst criminal situation I was ever in was for a crime I did not commit. Bad lawyer, bad advice and I ended up really close to doing time for a traffic ticket. Not DWI a left turn through a yellow light. Basically I was young and poor.
we are talking about proven cases. not an "maybe he did , maybe he didnt" case. if big mike just fucked little billy up the asshole then slit his throat? execute that pile of shit. immediately
This is a good compromise.
Because leftists lobbied successfully to make the process more expensive, so they could then argue to get rid of the death penalty because it was too expensive.
The issue is the long period of time enables for a lot of court battles. However, there are cases where people have been wrongly convicted. My analysis of the system is that if the country believes in innocent until proven guilty and the right to appeal then that belief has a cost that society will burden. Just end of the life of someone right afterwards doesn’t make a society Nobel, I think for the former does though.
Mass shooters and terrorists would be a good start.
Don't forget pedos and satanic child murderers.
Sadly, many patriots still don't believe pedos do satanic ritual murders of children. The theory is Pizzagate was "debunked" because the news said so
Death sentence is a God-given blessing. Anyone who disagrees deserves to have a relative murdered. Point blank period.
"we as a species have moved beyond this"
Honestly, the fucking ego. It can convince you of any and every thing. Thanks god.
We are a half step up from Lord of the Flies on our best day.
The mob rules way to often: Social Media, Womyns, #Metoo, LGBTWXYZ! and leftists.