Nonsense; guilt has little to do with it. It’s race and gender and skin color that matter much more than guilt.
More than you do; they will be some of the ones who die in your massacre campaign. Many will be hurt or die either as direct victims of your slaughter, or in the resulting riots and guerrilla war. They’ll die when they pick up a gun and try to fight back when they see most or all of their family being led away to be killed. They be killed in the gun battles when the soldiers are sent in - because doing what you say will take soldiers not cops. They’ll die when neighborhoods riot when hundreds are taken away to be killed, all dark skinned and poor naturally. They’ll die in the terrorist/guerrilla campaigns that such a policy would create. They will grow up and some will be the ones who fight back against what will most certainly be seen as a campaign of persecution and likely as one of genocide.
Yes, the gov’t doesn’t care about “guilt/innocence”, that’s just a ruse! It’s all a plot to kill people of color. OK.
Killing 100K people who are ALREADY in jail for crimes like murder, drug distribution, child rape/murder, armed robbery is not the same as pulling people off the street (because they are ‘of color’) and killing them. I think that’s lost on you.
I think the ‘people of color’ would be the biggest beneficaries…they would be able to live in inner cities without fear of being raped/mugged/victimized.
No, I just recognize just how unjust our “justice” system is. And that what would inevitably happen is that it would be 100k poor brown people who were killed, while wealthier, whiter people who were convicted of the same or worse crimes live.
Nonsense; the death penalty doesn’t lower crimes. They’d just add the fear of being taken out and executed to the dangers they already face. They’d know quite well it had little do to with killing criminals and everything to do with killing them.
I feel safer already!
But why stop there? If it’s okay to fry innocent people occasionally, then imagine how much safer we’d all be if we upped it to frying innocent people frequently.
And having a system where the government imposes the death penalty whenever the mood strikes it would definitely inspire a content, peaceful populace.
I’m REALLY hoping that the people making these suggestions just haven’t given it any thought. At all. Ever.
I am for the death penalty in a couple of cases : when someone rapes a child and when someone kills with intention.
I dont see the problem with expenses, maybe it is a specific thing in the US only. Put a bullet through the guy’s head. And if there is a moral problem, for who to choose to shoot the guy, because maybe it is not fair to the soldiers or police that they be ordered to kill someone, I think family members or friends of the victim will do it for free.
Of course the occasional innocent guy will get the death penalty, but that’s life, you win some, you lose some. No system is perfect.
I am for it, at least in theory. There are criminals whose guilt has been proven far beyond a half-assed excuse for “beyond a reasonable doubt”, and the death penalty should be limited to those cases. Frankly, if an appeals process catches any false positives on death row, the judges passing sentences aren’t doing their jobs.
It’s responses like this that make me certain that I am right to oppose the death penalty. I don’t want people who don’t care about innocence or guilt, people who apparently just want to kill for the sake of killing to have the legal right to kill people.
What, exactly makes someone with your attitude different than the supposedly so very awful people you want to execute? If we go around executing innocent people, why are we even bothering to condemn murderers for what they do?
Maybe I am different because I think that there are sacrifices to be made in order to achieve a greater good. If one man from 1000 is innocent, but the 1000 death penalties given make the future criminals afraid to do the deed, it is a good thing.
You know, the vast majority of convicted people are really guilty, in most countries the police doesn’t just pick a guy from the street and tell the world that he did it, just so they solve another case. The situation is like that only in a few countries, with totalitarian regimes, no rights for the people, no freedom, etc.
I’m anti-DP and pro-choice. I believe fetuses are not people until they are viable, at which point I’m pro-life. I don’t see this as a double standard.
A first trimester fetus does not have functional lungs. Even a respirator can’t compensate for the fact that they have not developed enough to function. This link describes the three stages of lung development that are needed to allow the lungs to function - stage two doesn’t begin until week 16, which is in the second trimester.
I am afraid you are mistaken. Death penalty opponents would dearly love to find an instance of someone who was executed who could later be shown innocent with some hard evidence like DNA. No such example has been found.
One example is Roger Coleman, who was convicted of murder. The DP opponents then submitted his DNA for an earlier, less accurate form of testing. It should him to be guilty, or at least to be one of the .2% of the population that matched the DNA sample from the murder scene. (This is in addition to all the other evidence against him.) He was subsequently executed. Then DP opponents wanted his DNA tested again, with a more sophisticated form of testing, hoping it would clear him and he could be used as a poster child against the DP. Guess what the results were?
I’m REALLY hoping that people making posts like you would stop and think. Just think some. Just a little bit.
I didn’t say killing innocent people was good, just that it was unavoidable. Having innocent people rot in jail is unavoidable too…should we abolish all jails and let everyone go because there are UNDOUBTEDLY some innocent people rotting within? That is your logic carried further.
There is no part of my logic that said it would be a good idea to kill innocent people at all.
The preening supposed moral superiority of the liberal shows itself again.
Reminds me of the liberal judge who let the child rapist out on bail…said rapist killed two adults and raped their two kids…while out on bail. No doubt the liberal judge patted himself on the back for having bail so low…unlike the rubes who would have kept this poor downtrodden victim in jail.
The death penalty lowers crime quite a bit. If you killed all the victmizers instead of unleashing them upon the populace there would be lower crime. We’ll never know as the death penalty is applied so sparingly.
So all people of color are criminals? How would someone who doesn’t commit crimes be put to death for murder or armed robbery if they didn’t do it?
If the system is that biased, I guess we should close down all the jails now as almost everyone in there is just an innocent victim of a horribly racist society.
The point is not whether or not they did it. The point is that a black defendant is statistically far more likely to be executed for a given crime than a white person.
If we cannot apply the death penalty fairly, we should not use it at all.
Tell me, are you familiar with the term ‘false choice’ ? There are more options than those two. Or are you suggesting that any option that does not involve the death penalty is commensurate with ‘just allowing rapists and murderers to run free’ ?