That’s actually worse than the present system. The falsely accused will simply be murdered, rather than having an appeal to clear one’s name.
It would not work.
First of all what if the criminal manages to avoid his captors and murder even more people?
People would learn from this experience and prevent it from happening again.
It isn’t a 100% guarantee.
Yep. “Shoot first, ask questions later.” Bodycount rises.
You may be putting even more faith in the average citizen than libertarians do.
And the way they’d prevent it from happening again is to vote out the idiot lawmakers who passed this amendment, get it repealed, and go back to the old system of the government administering justice.
The idea that the Georgian-era Brits shipped all their hardened criminals to Australia is completely wrong.
The idea behind transportation wasn’t so much to clear the criminals out of Britain as it was to establish the colonies in Australia. The convicts were free labour. They didn’t want to create a colony full of murderers and psychopaths: in Georgian England serious crimes got you hung, not transported.
The vast majority of Australian transportees were, in today’s terms, shoplifters. Basically poor people fallen on hard times, not hardened criminals. Transportation was forced colonisation, and the convicts were expected to reform and turn into solid citizens of the new colony, not to suffer and die. Mostly it worked, too.
So? The end result is that more people would be killed unjustly. Some people are opposed to state executions on ethical grounds, but a larger portion are opposed to vigilante killings and just about everyone is opposed to killing innocent people.
The cost of executions is one argument against the death penalty, but it’s not a primary argument - usually it’s only brought up in response to complains about the cost of keeping murderers in jail for life - and this is still a ridiculous solution to that problem.
In my system, the justice system still decides guilt and sentencing.
Which wouldn’t do the falsely convicted much good. Or those killed by the condemned who have nothing to lose. Or cops killed by people ( innocent or guilty ) who’d rather die fighting than be thrown to a mob. Or cops dragged out of their cars and set on fire by black mobs enraged at seeing black man after black man thrown to lynch mobs. Or people killed in pitched battles at the prison when the friends and family of the condemned show up and open fire on the lynch mob. And so on.
Logically speaking, if we should expect the people to provide accurate and reasonable responses to problems, then we should have already have arrived at the correct procedure for the death penalty. That is to say, if the system in place currently is a mistake, we should expect that it would have already been gotten rid of and replaced with your system, if it is a superior one.
That it hasn’t shows that if your logic is correct that your argument isn’t, and if your argument is correct your logic can’t be.
Bullshit. He might get killed if he’s small, weak or old, but if he’s a strong, healthy murderer - particularly a cop killer - or if he has connections to gangs operating within prisons, he will live like a king. He’ll get all the smuggled alcohol and drugs, food, and “pussy” (raping other men) that he wants; he’ll be in an environment where brute thuggery is RESPECTED and he’ll have a stratified order to fit into (which he will automatically be in the top portion of.)
Yeah, but other than that, the OP came up with a pretty good system.
Actually, non-debatable FACT, to which everyone is entitled.
You’re welcome.
This guy thinks the “free market” will eliminate problems with his citizen-vigilante approach to justice??? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Is there anything the Magical Free Market Fairy can’t do???
They should announce when they are releasing him and have a huge gate. Then they yell"pull , open the gate and let him go. What fun we would have .
Watched a lot of Oz, didja? What you describe could easily apply if the convict is set loose, if his crime has made him a folk hero to some. They’ll give him all the drugs, food and pussy (the real stuff) he can handle, too. Heck, death-row inmates, if they’re famous, get marriage proposals all the time.
The OP is assuming (that is, if we can assume this whole thing isn’t a big joke) that all Americans will be of a single mindset regarding the released-condemned, i.e. they’ll only act rationally, kill only the right person, kill him efficiently… it’s an Ayn Rand fantasy in which Americans are rugged pragmatic individualists who are all rugged and pragmatic in the same rational way, so they’ll just naturally all agree as rational men should. The best example of this is the Valley in her Atlas Shrugged, in which a refuge full of Type-A personalities got along with virtually no internal conflict. If a convicted murder was loose in the Valley, all the rational people there would unanimously agree on the best way to deal with him, and this is what the OP seems to assume would apply to America generally.
Evidence that shatters this fantasy has been and will continue to be ignored or waved away.
Nah; in that scenario we’d need to use a catapult. It’s not proper skeet shooting unless the target is airborne.
Your idea would result in more people being killed unjustly, not fewer. So it’s hard to imagine who you think will be satisfied by your proposal.
Lynch mobs. The sort of people who want to do the killing themselves, and want to make it as brutal as possible.