The Death Penalty---OP/ED

[rightwinger]

To paraphrase what you said before. Killing them won't bring the victims back. Some crimes do deserve a slow painful death. All I care about is that we are killing the right people every time. I would rather lock them up forever, away from society, than to take the chance of killing an innocent person.

Letting them live won't brings victims back either. However, if the guilty one thought it was good enough for their victims to die, why should they are anyone else have a problem if someone thinks the guilty one should die?

I'm all for not punishing an innocent person with death. However, those that believe like me still oppose the death penalty even when the guilty of the person being executed is not in question.

The problem is that it is ALWAYS in question because human beings make mistakes, some evidence is tampered with, eyewitnesses have been known to be quite inaccurate, some evidence can be contaminated, and nothing is 100%.

In many cases, it is 100%. For example, Dylann Roof, the Charleston, SC church shooter, is going to be tried and the death penalty is on the table both on the federal level and State level. There is absolutely no doubt that he did what he is accused of doing meaning it's 100%.

And they thought they were just as sure about the innocent people they killed. I don't have a problem with frying Root, but all executions aren't so unquestionable. I wouldn't have a problem with the death penalty if we were as sure about guilt as we are in his case.

Even in cases where there is no doubt like with Charleston, many still oppose the death penalty. When it's clear and absolute that the one being executed did the crime, the anti DP crowd still says no despite the evidence they say they want in order to support it is provided.

NO ONE is saying execute someone where there is doubt. I'm saying when there is absolutely no doubt, do the job and do it quickly. Opposition won't accept that.

The Death Penalty is barbaric
Eye for an eye justice ridiculed by most of the world

See those countries in red? They are our moral equivalents

 

[Conservative65]

To paraphrase what you said before. Killing them won't bring the victims back. Some crimes do deserve a slow painful death. All I care about is that we are killing the right people every time. I would rather lock them up forever, away from society, than to take the chance of killing an innocent person.

Letting them live won't brings victims back either. However, if the guilty one thought it was good enough for their victims to die, why should they are anyone else have a problem if someone thinks the guilty one should die?

I'm all for not punishing an innocent person with death. However, those that believe like me still oppose the death penalty even when the guilty of the person being executed is not in question.

The problem is that it is ALWAYS in question because human beings make mistakes, some evidence is tampered with, eyewitnesses have been known to be quite inaccurate, some evidence can be contaminated, and nothing is 100%.

In many cases, it is 100%. For example, Dylann Roof, the Charleston, SC church shooter, is going to be tried and the death penalty is on the table both on the federal level and State level. There is absolutely no doubt that he did what he is accused of doing meaning it's 100%.

And they thought they were just as sure about the innocent people they killed. I don't have a problem with frying Root, but all executions aren't so unquestionable. I wouldn't have a problem with the death penalty if we were as sure about guilt as we are in his case.

Yes, and it is often applied quite arbitrarily. One person will kill one or two people and be faced with death penalty while a convicted serial killer gets life in prison. I am also very uncomfortable with people (government people in particular) deciding who should get death. I don't feel comfortable with people making such decisions about another citizen's life/death. It just seems very, very wrong to me. To me, it makes us not much better than the killer we are condemning to death.

Letting them live won't brings victims back either. However, if the guilty one thought it was good enough for their victims to die, why should they are anyone else have a problem if someone thinks the guilty one should die?

I'm all for not punishing an innocent person with death. However, those that believe like me still oppose the death penalty even when the guilty of the person being executed is not in question.

The problem is that it is ALWAYS in question because human beings make mistakes, some evidence is tampered with, eyewitnesses have been known to be quite inaccurate, some evidence can be contaminated, and nothing is 100%.

In many cases, it is 100%. For example, Dylann Roof, the Charleston, SC church shooter, is going to be tried and the death penalty is on the table both on the federal level and State level. There is absolutely no doubt that he did what he is accused of doing meaning it's 100%.

And they thought they were just as sure about the innocent people they killed. I don't have a problem with frying Root, but all executions aren't so unquestionable. I wouldn't have a problem with the death penalty if we were as sure about guilt as we are in his case.

Even in cases where there is no doubt like with Charleston, many still oppose the death penalty. When it's clear and absolute that the one being executed did the crime, the anti DP crowd still says no despite the evidence they say they want in order to support it is provided.

NO ONE is saying execute someone where there is doubt. I'm saying when there is absolutely no doubt, do the job and do it quickly. Opposition won't accept that.

The Death Penalty is barbaric
Eye for an eye justice ridiculed by most of the world

See those countries in red? They are our moral equivalents

The death penalty the guilty murderer placed on his/her innocent victims is barbaric. Punishing them with what they thought was good enough for their innocent victim(s) is justice.

There's an easy way to avoid the death penalty. Don't do what it takes to get it.

 

[Conservative65]

I'm not the one supporting killing innocent people. You're the one that protects the guilty that murdered the innocent.

The death penalty has killed innocent people who were later found to be innocent while the guilty person went free. It's cheaper to lock them up forever than it is to kill them. How does killing them make them any less danger to society than locking them up forever?

Guilty people have been allowed to live while the innocent victim(s) they murdered lie in the ground.

To paraphrase what you said before. Killing them won't bring the victims back. Some crimes do deserve a slow painful death. All I care about is that we are killing the right people every time. I would rather lock them up forever, away from society, than to take the chance of killing an innocent person.

Which was my original argument

Capital cases should be held to a higher standard of proof than other cases

They are held to a higher standard of proof, but it's still not high enough because we still kill innocent people.

Those murderers that get the death penalty kill an innocent person every time yet you have no problem ignoring that.

 

[rightwinger]

Letting them live won't brings victims back either. However, if the guilty one thought it was good enough for their victims to die, why should they are anyone else have a problem if someone thinks the guilty one should die?

I'm all for not punishing an innocent person with death. However, those that believe like me still oppose the death penalty even when the guilty of the person being executed is not in question.

The problem is that it is ALWAYS in question because human beings make mistakes, some evidence is tampered with, eyewitnesses have been known to be quite inaccurate, some evidence can be contaminated, and nothing is 100%.

In many cases, it is 100%. For example, Dylann Roof, the Charleston, SC church shooter, is going to be tried and the death penalty is on the table both on the federal level and State level. There is absolutely no doubt that he did what he is accused of doing meaning it's 100%.

And they thought they were just as sure about the innocent people they killed. I don't have a problem with frying Root, but all executions aren't so unquestionable. I wouldn't have a problem with the death penalty if we were as sure about guilt as we are in his case.

Yes, and it is often applied quite arbitrarily. One person will kill one or two people and be faced with death penalty while a convicted serial killer gets life in prison. I am also very uncomfortable with people (government people in particular) deciding who should get death. I don't feel comfortable with people making such decisions about another citizen's life/death. It just seems very, very wrong to me. To me, it makes us not much better than the killer we are condemning to death.

The problem is that it is ALWAYS in question because human beings make mistakes, some evidence is tampered with, eyewitnesses have been known to be quite inaccurate, some evidence can be contaminated, and nothing is 100%.

In many cases, it is 100%. For example, Dylann Roof, the Charleston, SC church shooter, is going to be tried and the death penalty is on the table both on the federal level and State level. There is absolutely no doubt that he did what he is accused of doing meaning it's 100%.

And they thought they were just as sure about the innocent people they killed. I don't have a problem with frying Root, but all executions aren't so unquestionable. I wouldn't have a problem with the death penalty if we were as sure about guilt as we are in his case.

Even in cases where there is no doubt like with Charleston, many still oppose the death penalty. When it's clear and absolute that the one being executed did the crime, the anti DP crowd still says no despite the evidence they say they want in order to support it is provided.

NO ONE is saying execute someone where there is doubt. I'm saying when there is absolutely no doubt, do the job and do it quickly. Opposition won't accept that.

The Death Penalty is barbaric
Eye for an eye justice ridiculed by most of the world

See those countries in red? They are our moral equivalents

The death penalty the guilty murderer placed on his/her innocent victims is barbaric. Punishing them with what they thought was good enough for their innocent victim(s) is justice.

There's an easy way to avoid the death penalty. Don't do what it takes to get it.

A nation is not expected to match the moral values of its criminals

If you kill...I will kill you is the moral standard of a primative

 

[Conservative65]

The problem is that it is ALWAYS in question because human beings make mistakes, some evidence is tampered with, eyewitnesses have been known to be quite inaccurate, some evidence can be contaminated, and nothing is 100%.

In many cases, it is 100%. For example, Dylann Roof, the Charleston, SC church shooter, is going to be tried and the death penalty is on the table both on the federal level and State level. There is absolutely no doubt that he did what he is accused of doing meaning it's 100%.

And they thought they were just as sure about the innocent people they killed. I don't have a problem with frying Root, but all executions aren't so unquestionable. I wouldn't have a problem with the death penalty if we were as sure about guilt as we are in his case.

Yes, and it is often applied quite arbitrarily. One person will kill one or two people and be faced with death penalty while a convicted serial killer gets life in prison. I am also very uncomfortable with people (government people in particular) deciding who should get death. I don't feel comfortable with people making such decisions about another citizen's life/death. It just seems very, very wrong to me. To me, it makes us not much better than the killer we are condemning to death.

In many cases, it is 100%. For example, Dylann Roof, the Charleston, SC church shooter, is going to be tried and the death penalty is on the table both on the federal level and State level. There is absolutely no doubt that he did what he is accused of doing meaning it's 100%.

And they thought they were just as sure about the innocent people they killed. I don't have a problem with frying Root, but all executions aren't so unquestionable. I wouldn't have a problem with the death penalty if we were as sure about guilt as we are in his case.

Even in cases where there is no doubt like with Charleston, many still oppose the death penalty. When it's clear and absolute that the one being executed did the crime, the anti DP crowd still says no despite the evidence they say they want in order to support it is provided.

NO ONE is saying execute someone where there is doubt. I'm saying when there is absolutely no doubt, do the job and do it quickly. Opposition won't accept that.

The Death Penalty is barbaric
Eye for an eye justice ridiculed by most of the world

See those countries in red? They are our moral equivalents

The death penalty the guilty murderer placed on his/her innocent victims is barbaric. Punishing them with what they thought was good enough for their innocent victim(s) is justice.

There's an easy way to avoid the death penalty. Don't do what it takes to get it.

A nation is not expected to match the moral values of its criminals

If you kill...I will kill you is the moral standard of a primative

Invalid comparison on your part.

It's if you murder, you will be punished by doing so with your life. Difference between killing to kill and executing to punish.

 

[BULLDOG]

To paraphrase what you said before. Killing them won't bring the victims back. Some crimes do deserve a slow painful death. All I care about is that we are killing the right people every time. I would rather lock them up forever, away from society, than to take the chance of killing an innocent person.

Letting them live won't brings victims back either. However, if the guilty one thought it was good enough for their victims to die, why should they are anyone else have a problem if someone thinks the guilty one should die?

I'm all for not punishing an innocent person with death. However, those that believe like me still oppose the death penalty even when the guilty of the person being executed is not in question.

The problem is that it is ALWAYS in question because human beings make mistakes, some evidence is tampered with, eyewitnesses have been known to be quite inaccurate, some evidence can be contaminated, and nothing is 100%.

In many cases, it is 100%. For example, Dylann Roof, the Charleston, SC church shooter, is going to be tried and the death penalty is on the table both on the federal level and State level. There is absolutely no doubt that he did what he is accused of doing meaning it's 100%.

And they thought they were just as sure about the innocent people they killed. I don't have a problem with frying Root, but all executions aren't so unquestionable. I wouldn't have a problem with the death penalty if we were as sure about guilt as we are in his case.

Even in cases where there is no doubt like with Charleston, many still oppose the death penalty. When it's clear and absolute that the one being executed did the crime, the anti DP crowd still says no despite the evidence they say they want in order to support it is provided.

NO ONE is saying execute someone where there is doubt. I'm saying when there is absolutely no doubt, do the job and do it quickly. Opposition won't accept that.

Again, there was no doubt about the guilt of the innocent people we killed, until after they were dead. As a practical matter, it's still cheaper to lock them up forever than to kill them.

 

[BULLDOG]

Letting them live won't brings victims back either. However, if the guilty one thought it was good enough for their victims to die, why should they are anyone else have a problem if someone thinks the guilty one should die?

I'm all for not punishing an innocent person with death. However, those that believe like me still oppose the death penalty even when the guilty of the person being executed is not in question.

The problem is that it is ALWAYS in question because human beings make mistakes, some evidence is tampered with, eyewitnesses have been known to be quite inaccurate, some evidence can be contaminated, and nothing is 100%.

In many cases, it is 100%. For example, Dylann Roof, the Charleston, SC church shooter, is going to be tried and the death penalty is on the table both on the federal level and State level. There is absolutely no doubt that he did what he is accused of doing meaning it's 100%.

And they thought they were just as sure about the innocent people they killed. I don't have a problem with frying Root, but all executions aren't so unquestionable. I wouldn't have a problem with the death penalty if we were as sure about guilt as we are in his case.

Yes, and it is often applied quite arbitrarily. One person will kill one or two people and be faced with death penalty while a convicted serial killer gets life in prison. I am also very uncomfortable with people (government people in particular) deciding who should get death. I don't feel comfortable with people making such decisions about another citizen's life/death. It just seems very, very wrong to me. To me, it makes us not much better than the killer we are condemning to death.

The problem is that it is ALWAYS in question because human beings make mistakes, some evidence is tampered with, eyewitnesses have been known to be quite inaccurate, some evidence can be contaminated, and nothing is 100%.

In many cases, it is 100%. For example, Dylann Roof, the Charleston, SC church shooter, is going to be tried and the death penalty is on the table both on the federal level and State level. There is absolutely no doubt that he did what he is accused of doing meaning it's 100%.

And they thought they were just as sure about the innocent people they killed. I don't have a problem with frying Root, but all executions aren't so unquestionable. I wouldn't have a problem with the death penalty if we were as sure about guilt as we are in his case.

Even in cases where there is no doubt like with Charleston, many still oppose the death penalty. When it's clear and absolute that the one being executed did the crime, the anti DP crowd still says no despite the evidence they say they want in order to support it is provided.

NO ONE is saying execute someone where there is doubt. I'm saying when there is absolutely no doubt, do the job and do it quickly. Opposition won't accept that.

The Death Penalty is barbaric
Eye for an eye justice ridiculed by most of the world

See those countries in red? They are our moral equivalents

The death penalty the guilty murderer placed on his/her innocent victims is barbaric. Punishing them with what they thought was good enough for their innocent victim(s) is justice.

There's an easy way to avoid the death penalty. Don't do what it takes to get it.

Oddly that didn't work for the innocent people we executed.

 

[BULLDOG]

The death penalty has killed innocent people who were later found to be innocent while the guilty person went free. It's cheaper to lock them up forever than it is to kill them. How does killing them make them any less danger to society than locking them up forever?

Guilty people have been allowed to live while the innocent victim(s) they murdered lie in the ground.

To paraphrase what you said before. Killing them won't bring the victims back. Some crimes do deserve a slow painful death. All I care about is that we are killing the right people every time. I would rather lock them up forever, away from society, than to take the chance of killing an innocent person.

Which was my original argument

Capital cases should be held to a higher standard of proof than other cases

They are held to a higher standard of proof, but it's still not high enough because we still kill innocent people.

Those murderers that get the death penalty kill an innocent person every time yet you have no problem ignoring that.

I'm not ignoring anything. When did I say they shouldn't be punished?

 

[Conservative65]

Letting them live won't brings victims back either. However, if the guilty one thought it was good enough for their victims to die, why should they are anyone else have a problem if someone thinks the guilty one should die?

I'm all for not punishing an innocent person with death. However, those that believe like me still oppose the death penalty even when the guilty of the person being executed is not in question.

The problem is that it is ALWAYS in question because human beings make mistakes, some evidence is tampered with, eyewitnesses have been known to be quite inaccurate, some evidence can be contaminated, and nothing is 100%.

In many cases, it is 100%. For example, Dylann Roof, the Charleston, SC church shooter, is going to be tried and the death penalty is on the table both on the federal level and State level. There is absolutely no doubt that he did what he is accused of doing meaning it's 100%.

And they thought they were just as sure about the innocent people they killed. I don't have a problem with frying Root, but all executions aren't so unquestionable. I wouldn't have a problem with the death penalty if we were as sure about guilt as we are in his case.

Even in cases where there is no doubt like with Charleston, many still oppose the death penalty. When it's clear and absolute that the one being executed did the crime, the anti DP crowd still says no despite the evidence they say they want in order to support it is provided.

NO ONE is saying execute someone where there is doubt. I'm saying when there is absolutely no doubt, do the job and do it quickly. Opposition won't accept that.

Again, there was no doubt about the guilt of the innocent people we killed, until after they were dead. As a practical matter, it's still cheaper to lock them up forever than to kill them.

It's not cheaper if we execute them in a timely manner rather than letting them stay on death row for 20+ years.

 

[Conservative65]

Guilty people have been allowed to live while the innocent victim(s) they murdered lie in the ground.

To paraphrase what you said before. Killing them won't bring the victims back. Some crimes do deserve a slow painful death. All I care about is that we are killing the right people every time. I would rather lock them up forever, away from society, than to take the chance of killing an innocent person.

Which was my original argument

Capital cases should be held to a higher standard of proof than other cases

They are held to a higher standard of proof, but it's still not high enough because we still kill innocent people.

Those murderers that get the death penalty kill an innocent person every time yet you have no problem ignoring that.

I'm not ignoring anything. When did I say they shouldn't be punished?

You're ignoring that those from whom you want to protect from the death penalty enacted their own death penalty on an INNOCENT victim. Why do you care more about a guilty murderer than the innocent victims killed?

 

[Conservative65]

The problem is that it is ALWAYS in question because human beings make mistakes, some evidence is tampered with, eyewitnesses have been known to be quite inaccurate, some evidence can be contaminated, and nothing is 100%.

In many cases, it is 100%. For example, Dylann Roof, the Charleston, SC church shooter, is going to be tried and the death penalty is on the table both on the federal level and State level. There is absolutely no doubt that he did what he is accused of doing meaning it's 100%.

And they thought they were just as sure about the innocent people they killed. I don't have a problem with frying Root, but all executions aren't so unquestionable. I wouldn't have a problem with the death penalty if we were as sure about guilt as we are in his case.

Yes, and it is often applied quite arbitrarily. One person will kill one or two people and be faced with death penalty while a convicted serial killer gets life in prison. I am also very uncomfortable with people (government people in particular) deciding who should get death. I don't feel comfortable with people making such decisions about another citizen's life/death. It just seems very, very wrong to me. To me, it makes us not much better than the killer we are condemning to death.

In many cases, it is 100%. For example, Dylann Roof, the Charleston, SC church shooter, is going to be tried and the death penalty is on the table both on the federal level and State level. There is absolutely no doubt that he did what he is accused of doing meaning it's 100%.

And they thought they were just as sure about the innocent people they killed. I don't have a problem with frying Root, but all executions aren't so unquestionable. I wouldn't have a problem with the death penalty if we were as sure about guilt as we are in his case.

Even in cases where there is no doubt like with Charleston, many still oppose the death penalty. When it's clear and absolute that the one being executed did the crime, the anti DP crowd still says no despite the evidence they say they want in order to support it is provided.

NO ONE is saying execute someone where there is doubt. I'm saying when there is absolutely no doubt, do the job and do it quickly. Opposition won't accept that.

The Death Penalty is barbaric
Eye for an eye justice ridiculed by most of the world

See those countries in red? They are our moral equivalents

The death penalty the guilty murderer placed on his/her innocent victims is barbaric. Punishing them with what they thought was good enough for their innocent victim(s) is justice.

There's an easy way to avoid the death penalty. Don't do what it takes to get it.

Oddly that didn't work for the innocent people we executed.

Oddly you focus on something so rare while ignoring that many who should get it continue to undeservedly live.

 

[BULLDOG]

To paraphrase what you said before. Killing them won't bring the victims back. Some crimes do deserve a slow painful death. All I care about is that we are killing the right people every time. I would rather lock them up forever, away from society, than to take the chance of killing an innocent person.

Which was my original argument

Capital cases should be held to a higher standard of proof than other cases

They are held to a higher standard of proof, but it's still not high enough because we still kill innocent people.

Those murderers that get the death penalty kill an innocent person every time yet you have no problem ignoring that.

I'm not ignoring anything. When did I say they shouldn't be punished?

You're ignoring that those from whom you want to protect from the death penalty enacted their own death penalty on an INNOCENT victim. Why do you care more about a guilty murderer than the innocent victims killed?

Of course I'm not.

 

[BULLDOG]

In many cases, it is 100%. For example, Dylann Roof, the Charleston, SC church shooter, is going to be tried and the death penalty is on the table both on the federal level and State level. There is absolutely no doubt that he did what he is accused of doing meaning it's 100%.

And they thought they were just as sure about the innocent people they killed. I don't have a problem with frying Root, but all executions aren't so unquestionable. I wouldn't have a problem with the death penalty if we were as sure about guilt as we are in his case.

Yes, and it is often applied quite arbitrarily. One person will kill one or two people and be faced with death penalty while a convicted serial killer gets life in prison. I am also very uncomfortable with people (government people in particular) deciding who should get death. I don't feel comfortable with people making such decisions about another citizen's life/death. It just seems very, very wrong to me. To me, it makes us not much better than the killer we are condemning to death.

And they thought they were just as sure about the innocent people they killed. I don't have a problem with frying Root, but all executions aren't so unquestionable. I wouldn't have a problem with the death penalty if we were as sure about guilt as we are in his case.

Even in cases where there is no doubt like with Charleston, many still oppose the death penalty. When it's clear and absolute that the one being executed did the crime, the anti DP crowd still says no despite the evidence they say they want in order to support it is provided.

NO ONE is saying execute someone where there is doubt. I'm saying when there is absolutely no doubt, do the job and do it quickly. Opposition won't accept that.

The Death Penalty is barbaric
Eye for an eye justice ridiculed by most of the world

See those countries in red? They are our moral equivalents

The death penalty the guilty murderer placed on his/her innocent victims is barbaric. Punishing them with what they thought was good enough for their innocent victim(s) is justice.

There's an easy way to avoid the death penalty. Don't do what it takes to get it.

Oddly that didn't work for the innocent people we executed.

Oddly you focus on something so rare while ignoring that many who should get it continue to undeservedly live.

As long as they are locked up, the public protected from any further crimes by them. I'm not so sure that being locked up forever isn't nearly as bad as death.

 

[Conservative65]

And they thought they were just as sure about the innocent people they killed. I don't have a problem with frying Root, but all executions aren't so unquestionable. I wouldn't have a problem with the death penalty if we were as sure about guilt as we are in his case.

Yes, and it is often applied quite arbitrarily. One person will kill one or two people and be faced with death penalty while a convicted serial killer gets life in prison. I am also very uncomfortable with people (government people in particular) deciding who should get death. I don't feel comfortable with people making such decisions about another citizen's life/death. It just seems very, very wrong to me. To me, it makes us not much better than the killer we are condemning to death.

Even in cases where there is no doubt like with Charleston, many still oppose the death penalty. When it's clear and absolute that the one being executed did the crime, the anti DP crowd still says no despite the evidence they say they want in order to support it is provided.

NO ONE is saying execute someone where there is doubt. I'm saying when there is absolutely no doubt, do the job and do it quickly. Opposition won't accept that.

The Death Penalty is barbaric
Eye for an eye justice ridiculed by most of the world

See those countries in red? They are our moral equivalents

The death penalty the guilty murderer placed on his/her innocent victims is barbaric. Punishing them with what they thought was good enough for their innocent victim(s) is justice.

There's an easy way to avoid the death penalty. Don't do what it takes to get it.

Oddly that didn't work for the innocent people we executed.

Oddly you focus on something so rare while ignoring that many who should get it continue to undeservedly live.

As long as they are locked up, the public protected from any further crimes by them. I'm not so sure that being locked up forever isn't nearly as bad as death.

Don't be so sure.

www.foxnews.com/us/2016/06/13/arkansas-prisoner-escapes-killed-girl-and-put-her-in-barrel.html

 

[Conservative65]

Which was my original argument

Capital cases should be held to a higher standard of proof than other cases

They are held to a higher standard of proof, but it's still not high enough because we still kill innocent people.

Those murderers that get the death penalty kill an innocent person every time yet you have no problem ignoring that.

I'm not ignoring anything. When did I say they shouldn't be punished?

You're ignoring that those from whom you want to protect from the death penalty enacted their own death penalty on an INNOCENT victim. Why do you care more about a guilty murderer than the innocent victims killed?

Of course I'm not.

What you've said shows otherwise. Don't lie.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

I don't think any other subject stirs up as much as the death penalty, short of abortion. The biggest problem is that while liberal democrats FIGHT any inclusion of morality in abortion they INSIST on its placement when talking about the death penalty. They CLAIM the right has a flawed idea of morals when it comes to the death penalty and that simply is NOT the case.

THE DEATH PENALTY IS INHUMANE
Killing an innocent in the womb that has committed no crime is inhumane. Killing a murderer a rapist or a child molester is justice. A given percentage of the populace is simply going to be criminals. There is no utopia no programs that is going to change that. And people simply need to be adult enough to accept that.

THE DEATH PENALTY SHOULD BE PAINLESS
Why? Granted I am not saying burn them at the stake but why should it HAVE to be painless? Down here in Arizona in the town I live in we had a meth head passing through town that beat a woman to death for her lap top and some change. Anybody care to guess how long it takes to get beat to death? Reports at the time said her beating MAY have taken 15 to 20 minutes. Why does his death HAVE to be painless? Why should he be allowed to just go to sleep?

THE DEAD BODY CAN TRAUMATIZE THE FAMILY
That's a good thing, its a wake up call your family has a failure in parenting OR where you live has a failure in community. Its the result of a socially unacceptable act. They USED to do it in public and people used to bring their children. It was a lesson is social morality. If you behave this way then that is the result.

THE DEATH PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE PUBLIC
Wrong again as there is every reason FOR it to be public. I am not talking required to watch but available. I would go so far as to leave it open to the press. I would allow it to be televised. The victims, their families and the general population have a RIGHT to see their justice system work.

Fury

Now I am going to write why I am starting to turn against the death penalty:

1. When a individual is given the death penalty the family of the victim is put through the pain of reliving the death of their love one because of appeal process the death row inmate has.

2. I believe giving the savage death is too good for them and releasing them into the general population would be a quicker and cheaper way to eliminate the criminal because most on death row killed a innocent that will warrant their death from the General Population in prison.

Those are my two reasons why I am turning against the death penalty and also let me make it clear if the state is going to kill the wicked bastard then make it as painful as can be and let quit the humane nonsense because the monster that got itself on death row did not kill their victims or raped their victims humanely...

My opinion...

 

[JoeB131]

I posit that it would cost less as an expert panel would not need months and months of nonessential testimony and they could work on several cases at once

I wouldn't want to sit on a jury and rely on lawyers to tell the truth why the hell would you?

You say that lawyers are the problem and yet you want them telling you what the evidence means

Man you're even stupider than I thought and that's saying something

I would say SOME lawyers are the problem. so you fix the lawyers, not the juries.

again, we don't have enough forensic specialists to process evidence we have now. and most cases don't rely on forensics anyway.

1) Make sure the accused have adequate representation.
2) Sanction prosecutors who behave in unethical manners
3) Get rid of the death penalty because the system will never be infallible.

Problem. Fucking. Solved. And you didn't have to shred the constitution.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I posit that it would cost less as an expert panel would not need months and months of nonessential testimony and they could work on several cases at once

I wouldn't want to sit on a jury and rely on lawyers to tell the truth why the hell would you?

You say that lawyers are the problem and yet you want them telling you what the evidence means

Man you're even stupider than I thought and that's saying something

I would say SOME lawyers are the problem. so you fix the lawyers, not the juries.

again, we don't have enough forensic specialists to process evidence we have now. and most cases don't rely on forensics anyway.

1) Make sure the accused have adequate representation.
2) Sanction prosecutors who behave in unethical manners
3) Get rid of the death penalty because the system will never be infallible.

Problem. Fucking. Solved. And you didn't have to shred the constitution.

Yeah right

The juries are the problem the juries are chosen by lawyers and are manipulated by lawyers and they don't understand the science involved in forensics to the degree necessary to interpret evidence

Get rid of the jury system and the only thing that natters is the evidence not what 12 random people think the evidence is

And you want to get rid of the second amendment so so much for your shredding the constitution theory

 

[BULLDOG]

I posit that it would cost less as an expert panel would not need months and months of nonessential testimony and they could work on several cases at once

I wouldn't want to sit on a jury and rely on lawyers to tell the truth why the hell would you?

You say that lawyers are the problem and yet you want them telling you what the evidence means

Man you're even stupider than I thought and that's saying something

I would say SOME lawyers are the problem. so you fix the lawyers, not the juries.

again, we don't have enough forensic specialists to process evidence we have now. and most cases don't rely on forensics anyway.

1) Make sure the accused have adequate representation.
2) Sanction prosecutors who behave in unethical manners
3) Get rid of the death penalty because the system will never be infallible.

Problem. Fucking. Solved. And you didn't have to shred the constitution.

Yeah right

The juries are the problem the juries are chosen by lawyers and are manipulated by lawyers and they don't understand the science involved in forensics to the degree necessary to interpret evidence

Get rid of the jury system and the only thing that natters is the evidence not what 12 random people think the evidence is

And you want to get rid of the second amendment so so much for your shredding the constitution theory

You want to get rid of our judicial system, yet you whine about shredding the constitution. Right wingers are stupid.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I posit that it would cost less as an expert panel would not need months and months of nonessential testimony and they could work on several cases at once

I wouldn't want to sit on a jury and rely on lawyers to tell the truth why the hell would you?

You say that lawyers are the problem and yet you want them telling you what the evidence means

Man you're even stupider than I thought and that's saying something

I would say SOME lawyers are the problem. so you fix the lawyers, not the juries.

again, we don't have enough forensic specialists to process evidence we have now. and most cases don't rely on forensics anyway.

1) Make sure the accused have adequate representation.
2) Sanction prosecutors who behave in unethical manners
3) Get rid of the death penalty because the system will never be infallible.

Problem. Fucking. Solved. And you didn't have to shred the constitution.

Yeah right

The juries are the problem the juries are chosen by lawyers and are manipulated by lawyers and they don't understand the science involved in forensics to the degree necessary to interpret evidence

Get rid of the jury system and the only thing that natters is the evidence not what 12 random people think the evidence is

And you want to get rid of the second amendment so so much for your shredding the constitution theory

You want to get rid of our judicial system, yet you whine about shredding the constitution. Right wingers are stupid.

I never whine about it I tell you IDIOTS that the Constitution can be changed
Maybe you didn't know that but there is a procedure for changing the Constitution

You might want to look it up