And if that person happens to be wrongly convicted?
It's going to cost something to execute people; you're still going to have to go through a lot of expensive procedures, especially if you want to limit collateral damage.
And, if we're really going to expand the death penalty like some people have suggested, the administrative process alone is going to balloon massively and likely exponentially, as we struggle to make sure we're only executing people who deserve it.
Also, while they're alive, they can in theory be put to work to partially offset that cost. It's not as simple as Prison V Bullet.
And if that person happens to be wrongly convicted?
people die of government/judiciary incompetence all the time, and no one cares. this focus on hypothetical wrongful convictions is extremely disingenuous. Especially when the discussion is usually around getting rid of biotrash caught in the act.
...this focus on hypothetical wrongful convictions is extremely disingenuous.
"insincere or calculating...pretending"
Way to jump in on a polite and interesting discussion that's been going on for a day. You do realize jumping out of the starting gate like this leaves very little room for meaningful response, right? Because you're 100% wrong about me and my motives, and there's no point in me engaging with you, aside from pointing out your utter internet weirdness. Peace.
i'm not attacking you, i said the argument is disingenuous, not the person . "muh wrongful conviction" is always the first argument to come up in any discussion about death penalty. People think its some kind of gotcha no one supporting the death penalty ever considered before. its tiring, its a bad argument, and the people who thought it up (which I assume you're not part of) were extremely disingenuous.
We all heard that "better 10 criminals walk free(and murder a couple dozen innocents) than an innocent man be sent to the gallows" crap a hundred times already.
If someone gets the death penalty, there's pretty damn clear evidence they did it these days. Video, catching them in the act, etc etc. For those people, take them out back and put them down. No reason to keep them alive.
In some cases, sure. In many others, not clear at all. Even when we know almost everything, it can be hard to say with absolute certainty. We still have straight up misidentifications, where they don't even get the right person. And it just gets more complicated if, as mentioned, the death penalty were to be expanded. We have enough issues executing a few people here and there, if we were to execute all armed robbers, murders, etc., it gets incredibly messy and expensive.
For those people, take them out back and put them down. No reason to keep them alive.
Not a reason to execute people, in my opinion. What's the reason to keep you alive, or me alive? Are we just going to let the state decide? That's the issue, I think we need a line. I think we can reach a compromise where we can keep that final lethal power from the state, while still making sure violent scum can't hurt the citizenry.
Who cares, many innocent people are killed by criminals every day. If one innocent person gets executed but it saves hundreds of other innocent people through deterrence then it's a net positive. Sharia dictates that a thieves arm must be amputated, how many innocent people lost their arms? Doesn't matter because countries with Sharia don't have theft problems now.
Who cares [if the government kills innocent people?]
I care. And I'm sure all the innocent people who get executed would care. And their families. And so on.
many innocent people are killed by criminals every day.
Indeed, and we should probably make sure they can't do that. Which my suggestions also do, without killing innocent people.
Sharia dictates that a thieves arm must be amputated, how many innocent people lost their arms? Doesn't matter because countries with Sharia don't have theft problems now.
Life in jail: millions of dollars.
45 cal round to the back of the head? 40 cents.
I dunno. One seems more effective than the other.
And if that person happens to be wrongly convicted?
It's going to cost something to execute people; you're still going to have to go through a lot of expensive procedures, especially if you want to limit collateral damage.
And, if we're really going to expand the death penalty like some people have suggested, the administrative process alone is going to balloon massively and likely exponentially, as we struggle to make sure we're only executing people who deserve it.
Also, while they're alive, they can in theory be put to work to partially offset that cost. It's not as simple as Prison V Bullet.
people die of government/judiciary incompetence all the time, and no one cares. this focus on hypothetical wrongful convictions is extremely disingenuous. Especially when the discussion is usually around getting rid of biotrash caught in the act.
"insincere or calculating...pretending"
Way to jump in on a polite and interesting discussion that's been going on for a day. You do realize jumping out of the starting gate like this leaves very little room for meaningful response, right? Because you're 100% wrong about me and my motives, and there's no point in me engaging with you, aside from pointing out your utter internet weirdness. Peace.
i'm not attacking you, i said the argument is disingenuous, not the person . "muh wrongful conviction" is always the first argument to come up in any discussion about death penalty. People think its some kind of gotcha no one supporting the death penalty ever considered before. its tiring, its a bad argument, and the people who thought it up (which I assume you're not part of) were extremely disingenuous.
We all heard that "better 10 criminals walk free(and murder a couple dozen innocents) than an innocent man be sent to the gallows" crap a hundred times already.
If someone gets the death penalty, there's pretty damn clear evidence they did it these days. Video, catching them in the act, etc etc. For those people, take them out back and put them down. No reason to keep them alive.
In some cases, sure. In many others, not clear at all. Even when we know almost everything, it can be hard to say with absolute certainty. We still have straight up misidentifications, where they don't even get the right person. And it just gets more complicated if, as mentioned, the death penalty were to be expanded. We have enough issues executing a few people here and there, if we were to execute all armed robbers, murders, etc., it gets incredibly messy and expensive.
Not a reason to execute people, in my opinion. What's the reason to keep you alive, or me alive? Are we just going to let the state decide? That's the issue, I think we need a line. I think we can reach a compromise where we can keep that final lethal power from the state, while still making sure violent scum can't hurt the citizenry.
If you're a mass murderer who's not redeemable, why should you be kept alive?
Who cares, many innocent people are killed by criminals every day. If one innocent person gets executed but it saves hundreds of other innocent people through deterrence then it's a net positive. Sharia dictates that a thieves arm must be amputated, how many innocent people lost their arms? Doesn't matter because countries with Sharia don't have theft problems now.
I care. And I'm sure all the innocent people who get executed would care. And their families. And so on.
Indeed, and we should probably make sure they can't do that. Which my suggestions also do, without killing innocent people.
Hahahahaha.
I lived in Saudi Arabia. You could leave your bag in a cart and come back 2 days later and find nothing missing.
Ex-soviet steel-case shit was 20c a round last time I bought plinking .45, and that'll do just fine for a field-expedient frontal lobotomy.
Maybe prices have gone back up since I last checked.