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.
You did say it was the focus on wrongful convictions that was disingenuous, so it seems anyone arguing that would be disingenuous. Anyway, my point stands, you saying my entire argument has no merit and can't be argued in good faith leaves nowhere for me to go. I'm not attacking you either for the record, just pointing out that I had great discussions with a bunch of people I disagreed with, and we looked at each side and tried to understand each other.
You're essentially saying, at best "you're wrong," and at worst "you're lying." I can't do much with that. Because I'm not lying, I obviously don't believe myself to be wrong, and it is a concern I hold, and a concern I think any justice system should take into account.
People think its some kind of gotcha
I also never used it as a gotcha, and just used it to explain parts of my position.
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.
And there's some truth to that argument; we don't want a justice system that abuses the innocent. That said, I consistently argued throughout my entire discussion that we need to stop letting criminals walk free. The point about the death penalty is I'd rather imprison innocent people - and hopefully eventually let them walk free - than potentially kill those innocents. I'm for a stricter stance on crime, I'm for criminals not walking free anywhere near as easily. I'm just not for the death penalty, for a number of reasons I've already mentioned, one of which is it would occasionally kill innocent people...and much more than occasionally if it was massively expanded.
I'm pro not letting criminals walk free to murder dozens of innocents. I'm still anti death penalty, and anti executing innocent people. Both can be true.
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.
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.
You did say it was the focus on wrongful convictions that was disingenuous, so it seems anyone arguing that would be disingenuous. Anyway, my point stands, you saying my entire argument has no merit and can't be argued in good faith leaves nowhere for me to go. I'm not attacking you either for the record, just pointing out that I had great discussions with a bunch of people I disagreed with, and we looked at each side and tried to understand each other.
You're essentially saying, at best "you're wrong," and at worst "you're lying." I can't do much with that. Because I'm not lying, I obviously don't believe myself to be wrong, and it is a concern I hold, and a concern I think any justice system should take into account.
I also never used it as a gotcha, and just used it to explain parts of my position.
And there's some truth to that argument; we don't want a justice system that abuses the innocent. That said, I consistently argued throughout my entire discussion that we need to stop letting criminals walk free. The point about the death penalty is I'd rather imprison innocent people - and hopefully eventually let them walk free - than potentially kill those innocents. I'm for a stricter stance on crime, I'm for criminals not walking free anywhere near as easily. I'm just not for the death penalty, for a number of reasons I've already mentioned, one of which is it would occasionally kill innocent people...and much more than occasionally if it was massively expanded.
I'm pro not letting criminals walk free to murder dozens of innocents. I'm still anti death penalty, and anti executing innocent people. Both can be true.
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.