More winning. Federal death penalty to be reinstated

[Markle]

They don't escape all the time. These guys would be in solitary just as they would be if on death row.

Not true.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It could with the right leadership, and I do mean Right. It has zero possibly of ever being a deterrent by eliminating it.

And no, the death penalty was stopped in this country years ago, so it was not a continuous thing. It was reinstated a decade later.

It's existed continually on a state level.

There were no executions in the United States between 1967 and 1977. In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down capital punishment statutes in Furman v. Georgia, reducing all death sentences pending at the time to life imprisonment.[9]

Capital punishment in the United States - Wikipedia

From your link.

Capital punishment is a legal penalty in the United States, currently used by 29 states, the federal government, and the military.[1] Its existence can be traced to the beginning of the American colonies. The United States is the only developed Western nation that applies the death penalty regularly.


My point is that it's has never been and will never be a deterrent. Human nature will always ensure that there are those who will commit heinous crimes regardless of the penalty.

Your point is moot because it probably was a real deterrent at one time. If you got the death penalty, you were hung in public a day or so later.

My point is that the death penalty was not always the way of the land. It was stopped by the SC for a period of time. And if we could find a way to speed these cases through, the death penalty would be a deterrent. What would we have to lose by trying it out?

The death penalty has never been a deterrent t and there are a lot of cases where people have committed murder in the hopes of getting the death penalty.

Because of the increased trial costs and mandatory appeals, it costs more to execute someone than to jail them for the rest of their lives. Life. No parole. Ever.

You are correct, it does cost more. That's why we need to drastically change the system. For open and shut cases where there is zero doubt, all appeals should be exhausted in four to six months, and the execution moves on. Much of the cost is because they sit in prison for 15 to 18 years, and of course the legal fees added on to that.

However if we got rid of the costs of supporting the murderer and executed him almost immediately, it would greatly reduce those costs.

I've never heard of a case where somebody murdered another just so they could be executed. There have been cases of suicide by police, but that's as close as it ever came.

 

[HenryBHough]

Democrat Point of View:

Death penalty is wrong for convicted murders but OK for innocent infants.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It could with the right leadership, and I do mean Right. It has zero possibly of ever being a deterrent by eliminating it.

And no, the death penalty was stopped in this country years ago, so it was not a continuous thing. It was reinstated a decade later.

It's existed continually on a state level.

There were no executions in the United States between 1967 and 1977. In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down capital punishment statutes in Furman v. Georgia, reducing all death sentences pending at the time to life imprisonment.[9]

Capital punishment in the United States - Wikipedia

From your link.

Capital punishment is a legal penalty in the United States, currently used by 29 states, the federal government, and the military.[1] Its existence can be traced to the beginning of the American colonies. The United States is the only developed Western nation that applies the death penalty regularly.


My point is that it's has never been and will never be a deterrent. Human nature will always ensure that there are those who will commit heinous crimes regardless of the penalty.

Your point is moot because it probably was a real deterrent at one time. If you got the death penalty, you were hung in public a day or so later.

My point is that the death penalty was not always the way of the land. It was stopped by the SC for a period of time. And if we could find a way to speed these cases through, the death penalty would be a deterrent. What would we have to lose by trying it out?

Our decency.

Yes, I understand that if we did something that proved much more successful against your beliefs, it can be a frightening thing.

 

[Polishprince]

It's existed continually on a state level.

There were no executions in the United States between 1967 and 1977. In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down capital punishment statutes in Furman v. Georgia, reducing all death sentences pending at the time to life imprisonment.[9]

Capital punishment in the United States - Wikipedia

From your link.

Capital punishment is a legal penalty in the United States, currently used by 29 states, the federal government, and the military.[1] Its existence can be traced to the beginning of the American colonies. The United States is the only developed Western nation that applies the death penalty regularly.


My point is that it's has never been and will never be a deterrent. Human nature will always ensure that there are those who will commit heinous crimes regardless of the penalty.

Your point is moot because it probably was a real deterrent at one time. If you got the death penalty, you were hung in public a day or so later.

My point is that the death penalty was not always the way of the land. It was stopped by the SC for a period of time. And if we could find a way to speed these cases through, the death penalty would be a deterrent. What would we have to lose by trying it out?

The death penalty has never been a deterrent t and there are a lot of cases where people have committed murder in the hopes of getting the death penalty.

Because of the increased trial costs and mandatory appeals, it costs more to execute someone than to jail them for the rest of their lives. Life. No parole. Ever.

You are correct, it does cost more. That's why we need to drastically change the system. For open and shut cases where there is zero doubt, all appeals should be exhausted in four to six months, and the execution moves on. Much of the cost is because they sit in prison for 15 to 18 years, and of course the legal fees added on to that.

However if we got rid of the costs of supporting the murderer and executed him almost immediately, it would greatly reduce those costs.

I've never heard of a case where somebody murdered another just so they could be executed. There have been cases of suicide by police, but that's as close as it ever came.

Some condemned have been sitting in prison for 30 years or longer. Back in the day, it was considered a bit of a scandal that it took 12 years to send Caryl Chessman to the Gas Chamber.

I don't know what's so difficult

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There were no executions in the United States between 1967 and 1977. In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down capital punishment statutes in Furman v. Georgia, reducing all death sentences pending at the time to life imprisonment.[9]

Capital punishment in the United States - Wikipedia

From your link.

Capital punishment is a legal penalty in the United States, currently used by 29 states, the federal government, and the military.[1] Its existence can be traced to the beginning of the American colonies. The United States is the only developed Western nation that applies the death penalty regularly.


My point is that it's has never been and will never be a deterrent. Human nature will always ensure that there are those who will commit heinous crimes regardless of the penalty.

Your point is moot because it probably was a real deterrent at one time. If you got the death penalty, you were hung in public a day or so later.

My point is that the death penalty was not always the way of the land. It was stopped by the SC for a period of time. And if we could find a way to speed these cases through, the death penalty would be a deterrent. What would we have to lose by trying it out?

The death penalty has never been a deterrent t and there are a lot of cases where people have committed murder in the hopes of getting the death penalty.

Because of the increased trial costs and mandatory appeals, it costs more to execute someone than to jail them for the rest of their lives. Life. No parole. Ever.

You are correct, it does cost more. That's why we need to drastically change the system. For open and shut cases where there is zero doubt, all appeals should be exhausted in four to six months, and the execution moves on. Much of the cost is because they sit in prison for 15 to 18 years, and of course the legal fees added on to that.

However if we got rid of the costs of supporting the murderer and executed him almost immediately, it would greatly reduce those costs.

I've never heard of a case where somebody murdered another just so they could be executed. There have been cases of suicide by police, but that's as close as it ever came.

Some condemned have been sitting in prison for 30 years or longer. Back in the day, it was considered a bit of a scandal that it took 12 years to send Caryl Chessman to the Gas Chamber.

I don't know what's so difficult

Their position is that because the DP is not a deterrent, simply get rid of it. Ours is that because it's not a deterrent, make it so it is a deterrent.

However the bottom line is nobody has any proof whether it is a deterrent or not. What is fact is that our homicide rates are at mid 1960 levels, and during most of that time, the death penalty has been in force.

I prefer to believe that the reduction in our homicide rate is due to more armed Americans, and laws that protect us when we do use deadly force. At the same time, we can't disregard the death penalty either. So who really knows?

 

[Dragonlady]

From your link.

Capital punishment is a legal penalty in the United States, currently used by 29 states, the federal government, and the military.[1] Its existence can be traced to the beginning of the American colonies. The United States is the only developed Western nation that applies the death penalty regularly.


My point is that it's has never been and will never be a deterrent. Human nature will always ensure that there are those who will commit heinous crimes regardless of the penalty.

Your point is moot because it probably was a real deterrent at one time. If you got the death penalty, you were hung in public a day or so later.

My point is that the death penalty was not always the way of the land. It was stopped by the SC for a period of time. And if we could find a way to speed these cases through, the death penalty would be a deterrent. What would we have to lose by trying it out?

The death penalty has never been a deterrent t and there are a lot of cases where people have committed murder in the hopes of getting the death penalty.

Because of the increased trial costs and mandatory appeals, it costs more to execute someone than to jail them for the rest of their lives. Life. No parole. Ever.

You are correct, it does cost more. That's why we need to drastically change the system. For open and shut cases where there is zero doubt, all appeals should be exhausted in four to six months, and the execution moves on. Much of the cost is because they sit in prison for 15 to 18 years, and of course the legal fees added on to that.

However if we got rid of the costs of supporting the murderer and executed him almost immediately, it would greatly reduce those costs.

I've never heard of a case where somebody murdered another just so they could be executed. There have been cases of suicide by police, but that's as close as it ever came.

Some condemned have been sitting in prison for 30 years or longer. Back in the day, it was considered a bit of a scandal that it took 12 years to send Caryl Chessman to the Gas Chamber.

I don't know what's so difficult

Their position is that because the DP is not a deterrent, simply get rid of it. Ours is that because it's not a deterrent, make it so it is a deterrent.

However the bottom line is nobody has any proof whether it is a deterrent or not. What is fact is that our homicide rates are at mid 1960 levels, and during most of that time, the death penalty has been in force.

I prefer to believe that the reduction in our homicide rate is due to more armed Americans, and laws that protect us when we do use deadly force. At the same time, we can't disregard the death penalty either. So who really knows?

 

[Dragonlady]

The homicide rate is dropping because the population is aging. No other reason. The guns aren’t helping. This is happening in every jurisdiction and nation, across all first world nations. It’s not exclusive to the USA.

The USA continues to have the highest murder rates in the first world by far. That’s due to ease of access to guns.

 

[ScorpioRising007]

(CNN)The federal government is set to bring back capital punishment after 16 years with the executions of five inmates.

Attorney General William Barr on Thursday ordered the Bureau of Prisons to adopt an updated execution protocol, clearing the way for five death row inmates to be put to death. The executions are scheduled to begin in December 2019, though legal challenges could potentially delay them.
These are the inmates who will be executed:

These 5 inmates will be executed after Attorney General William Barr told the federal government to reinstate death penalty - CNN

That's right libs, the federal death penalty is back in the good ole USA. While you focus on killing babies, we are focusing on killing people who actually deserve execution.

Now it's just a matter of liberals crying about these poor innocent people who became the people they are thanks to a failed society. But wait! There's something in this for the left as well! One of the first people on that list is a white supremacist.

See, something for everybody, that is until the ACLU or some other leftist group plugs the courts up with lawsuits.

Well this might create job loss for some employed at a correction facility. More inmates executed, less staff they need to hire. I applied for a job as a correction officer at one time, didnt get it. Those are great jobs with great benefits that people really need. I dont think it makes much a difference in crime rates if execution rates are increased, just increases unemployment for those working in correction facilities. I say take away the death penalty keep more people employed and save those jobs.

 

[Polishprince]

The homicide rate is dropping because the population is aging. No other reason. The guns aren’t helping. This is happening in every jurisdiction and nation, across all first world nations. It’s not exclusive to the USA.

The USA continues to have the highest murder rates in the first world by far. That’s due to ease of access to guns.

America actually has a much lower murder rate than the Shithole Nations where large numbers of our population came from.

Countries with Draconian Style gun control like Mexico and El Salvador.

America has little in common with the dying cultures of western Europe, except for the fact that they are fairly wealthy.

 

[Polishprince]

Well this might create job loss for some employed at a correction facility. More inmates executed, less staff they need to hire. I applied for a job as a correction officer at one time, didnt get it. Those are great jobs with great benefits that people really need. I dont think it makes much a difference in crime rates if execution rates are increased, just increases unemployment for those working in correction facilities.

Being a screw in the penal institution doesn't sound like that great a gig to me. Sure, the benefits are significant.

But it looks like a tough way to earn a living, marching the cons around, counting them, breaking up fights between grown men attacking each other with shivs, conducting body cavity searches.

Increasing the rate of execution might open new opportunities for guards in maintaining and operating the electric chairs and sofas, etc.

 

[Markle]

Your point is moot because it probably was a real deterrent at one time. If you got the death penalty, you were hung in public a day or so later.

My point is that the death penalty was not always the way of the land. It was stopped by the SC for a period of time. And if we could find a way to speed these cases through, the death penalty would be a deterrent. What would we have to lose by trying it out?

The death penalty has never been a deterrent t and there are a lot of cases where people have committed murder in the hopes of getting the death penalty.

Because of the increased trial costs and mandatory appeals, it costs more to execute someone than to jail them for the rest of their lives. Life. No parole. Ever.

You are correct, it does cost more. That's why we need to drastically change the system. For open and shut cases where there is zero doubt, all appeals should be exhausted in four to six months, and the execution moves on. Much of the cost is because they sit in prison for 15 to 18 years, and of course the legal fees added on to that.

However if we got rid of the costs of supporting the murderer and executed him almost immediately, it would greatly reduce those costs.

I've never heard of a case where somebody murdered another just so they could be executed. There have been cases of suicide by police, but that's as close as it ever came.

Some condemned have been sitting in prison for 30 years or longer. Back in the day, it was considered a bit of a scandal that it took 12 years to send Caryl Chessman to the Gas Chamber.

I don't know what's so difficult

Their position is that because the DP is not a deterrent, simply get rid of it. Ours is that because it's not a deterrent, make it so it is a deterrent.

However the bottom line is nobody has any proof whether it is a deterrent or not. What is fact is that our homicide rates are at mid 1960 levels, and during most of that time, the death penalty has been in force.

I prefer to believe that the reduction in our homicide rate is due to more armed Americans, and laws that protect us when we do use deadly force. At the same time, we can't disregard the death penalty either. So who really knows?

 

[Markle]

The homicide rate is dropping because the population is aging. No other reason. The guns aren’t helping. This is happening in every jurisdiction and nation, across all first world nations. It’s not exclusive to the USA.

The USA continues to have the highest murder rates in the first world by far. That’s due to ease of access to guns.

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
By James Slack
UPDATED:18:14 EST, 2 July 2009

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour.

The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 920 and South Africa 1,609.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'This is a damning indictment of this government's comprehensive failure over more than a decade to tackle the deep rooted social problems in our society, and the knock on effect on crime and anti-social behaviour.

Read more: The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Daily Mail Online

UK is violent crime capital of Europe

 

[Dragonlady]

The homicide rate is dropping because the population is aging. No other reason. The guns aren’t helping. This is happening in every jurisdiction and nation, across all first world nations. It’s not exclusive to the USA.

The USA continues to have the highest murder rates in the first world by far. That’s due to ease of access to guns.

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
By James Slack
UPDATED:18:14 EST, 2 July 2009

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour.

The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 920 and South Africa 1,609.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'This is a damning indictment of this government's comprehensive failure over more than a decade to tackle the deep rooted social problems in our society, and the knock on effect on crime and anti-social behaviour.

Read more: The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Daily Mail Online

UK is violent crime capital of Europe

The United Kingdom counts violent crime differently than other countries. As does the USA. For example, in the USA "sexual assault" is defined as "rape" In other countries, "sexual assault" is defined as any unwanted touching, groping, and any attempts to touch or grope. Americans keep saying why do Canadian men commit so many more rapes than Americans. They don't. The commit fewer rapes. But attempted rape, touching, and groping are also counted in our stats.

Americans count "violent crime" as something that sends someone to the hospital, or when a life is threatened or lost. If two guys in a pub in Britain go out and have a dust up out back of the bar, and the police are called to break it up, that is counted as a "violent cime" in Britain.

Only the most violent crimes in America are counted. The Brits count everything.

 

[Markle]

The homicide rate is dropping because the population is aging. No other reason. The guns aren’t helping. This is happening in every jurisdiction and nation, across all first world nations. It’s not exclusive to the USA.

The USA continues to have the highest murder rates in the first world by far. That’s due to ease of access to guns.

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
By James Slack
UPDATED:18:14 EST, 2 July 2009

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour.

The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 920 and South Africa 1,609.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'This is a damning indictment of this government's comprehensive failure over more than a decade to tackle the deep rooted social problems in our society, and the knock on effect on crime and anti-social behaviour.

Read more: The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Daily Mail Online

UK is violent crime capital of Europe

The United Kingdom counts violent crime differently than other countries. As does the USA. For example, in the USA "sexual assault" is defined as "rape" In other countries, "sexual assault" is defined as any unwanted touching, groping, and any attempts to touch or grope. Americans keep saying why do Canadian men commit so many more rapes than Americans. They don't. The commit fewer rapes. But attempted rape, touching, and groping are also counted in our stats.

Americans count "violent crime" as something that sends someone to the hospital, or when a life is threatened or lost. If two guys in a pub in Britain go out and have a dust up out back of the bar, and the police are called to break it up, that is counted as a "violent cime" in Britain.

Only the most violent crimes in America are counted. The Brits count everything.

 

[Dragonlady]

The homicide rate is dropping because the population is aging. No other reason. The guns aren’t helping. This is happening in every jurisdiction and nation, across all first world nations. It’s not exclusive to the USA.

The USA continues to have the highest murder rates in the first world by far. That’s due to ease of access to guns.

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
By James Slack
UPDATED:18:14 EST, 2 July 2009

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour.

The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 920 and South Africa 1,609.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'This is a damning indictment of this government's comprehensive failure over more than a decade to tackle the deep rooted social problems in our society, and the knock on effect on crime and anti-social behaviour.

Read more: The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Daily Mail Online

UK is violent crime capital of Europe

The United Kingdom counts violent crime differently than other countries. As does the USA. For example, in the USA "sexual assault" is defined as "rape" In other countries, "sexual assault" is defined as any unwanted touching, groping, and any attempts to touch or grope. Americans keep saying why do Canadian men commit so many more rapes than Americans. They don't. The commit fewer rapes. But attempted rape, touching, and groping are also counted in our stats.

Americans count "violent crime" as something that sends someone to the hospital, or when a life is threatened or lost. If two guys in a pub in Britain go out and have a dust up out back of the bar, and the police are called to break it up, that is counted as a "violent cime" in Britain.

Only the most violent crimes in America are counted. The Brits count everything.

In other words, you've got nothing:

Why the US needs better crime reporting statistics

Violent Crime: The US and Abroad - Criminal Justice Degree Hub

Social media post says U.K. has far higher violent crime rate than U.S. does

A true conservative. You could google the question, and not make a complete of yourself in responding, but the fact you chose to demonstrate your complete ignorance and stupidity, speaks to why you vote conservative.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The homicide rate is dropping because the population is aging. No other reason. The guns aren’t helping. This is happening in every jurisdiction and nation, across all first world nations. It’s not exclusive to the USA.

The USA continues to have the highest murder rates in the first world by far. That’s due to ease of access to guns.

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
By James Slack
UPDATED:18:14 EST, 2 July 2009

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour.

The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 920 and South Africa 1,609.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'This is a damning indictment of this government's comprehensive failure over more than a decade to tackle the deep rooted social problems in our society, and the knock on effect on crime and anti-social behaviour.

Read more: The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Daily Mail Online

UK is violent crime capital of Europe

The United Kingdom counts violent crime differently than other countries. As does the USA. For example, in the USA "sexual assault" is defined as "rape" In other countries, "sexual assault" is defined as any unwanted touching, groping, and any attempts to touch or grope. Americans keep saying why do Canadian men commit so many more rapes than Americans. They don't. The commit fewer rapes. But attempted rape, touching, and groping are also counted in our stats.

Americans count "violent crime" as something that sends someone to the hospital, or when a life is threatened or lost. If two guys in a pub in Britain go out and have a dust up out back of the bar, and the police are called to break it up, that is counted as a "violent cime" in Britain.

Only the most violent crimes in America are counted. The Brits count everything.

Sexual Assault Law and Legal Definition

Sexual assault refers to an assault of a sexual nature on another person. It can include a wide range of unwanted sexual contact such as rape, forced vaginal, anal or oral penetration, forced sexual intercourse, inappropriate touching, forced kissing, child molestation ,exhibitionism, voyeurism, obscene phone calls torture of a victim in a sexual manner etc. The actor causes submission of the victim by means that is reasonably calculated to cause submission against the victim's will. Definitions of offences are primarily governed by state criminal laws, which vary by state. It is generally a felony.

Sexual Assault Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't normally bump my own posts; I hate when other people do it, but I just have to know, out of all the anti-death penalty people in this discussion, who here is still against capital punishment given the two mass shootings in Ohio and Texas? Yes, the Dayton killer was killed by police, but the El Paso killer is alive and facing the death penalty.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yep, the exact response I expected.