Straw man. The risk of an incorrect conviction is a critique of the judicial process itself and should not be interchanged with a critique of the implementation of punishment.
On Killing Death Row Inmates By Firing Squad
- Thread starter Trademark
- Start date
Straw man. The risk of an incorrect conviction is a critique of the judicial process itself and should not be interchanged with a critique of the implementation of punishment.
I'll pull the trigger myself, just throwin that out there.
Zero regrets motherfucker
What if someone, for example, raped your wife/sister.
And you killed him.
Would you still be pro death penalty?
Show me a case where this has happened and the person was sentenced to death (in the USA).
Life in prison is more of a deterrent to most people than death. Do you honestly think anybody that is considering committing a 1st degree murder is going to take the time to consider if he is in a state with the death penalty or not? If so, can you actually foresee a person saying, "you know, if I was only facing life in prison I would do it, but this state has the death penalty so I'd better not."? The fact is, most people that commit 1st degree murder do so with the intention of getting away with it, so the punishment is irrelevant. Obviously, if the punishment were 5 years or something ridiculous, more people would do it. But life in prison, or death penalty pretty much means the same thing to most people - your life is over.
It's not a straw man. The Innocence Project has already exonerated 254 people. Eyewitness accounts have been shown to be inaccurate more often that not, juries are notoriously retarded (in both directions - see OJ) and there is a lot of abuse on the local level by departments that want to clean their books. You may consider that a critique of the judicial system, but the judicial system, and the implementation of it's punishments are inseparable. If you don't agree, please explain how they aren't related.
I am pro death penalty... and if someone raped my wife/sister I'd be even more pro death penalty. Only in a backwards society would I be the one who is put to death
i don't trust my government to do anything right, let alone kill people who are hopefully guilty of a crime.
If i remember I saw on a news special it costs 30k to have an inmate in jail for a year? If you ask me thats alot of money being wasted right there.
What I'm really curious about is why they only gave 4 of the 5 executioners bullets and gave one blanks. Is that to give them some psychological breathing room if they feel traumatized by participating? So they could tell themselves "Maybe I didn't actually kill him" ?
Exactly. And if you've ever dealt with law enforcement you'll appreciate how aggressive they can be in "getting results".
No argument there.
You contradicted yourself in the span of two sentences. First you say it's not a deterrent (a consideration must be made to determine something is detrimental to you), then you say a murder doesn't take the time for consideration so the penalty is irrelevant.
The jury isn't tasked with determining a punishment until they have decided if a defendant is guilty or not (if they even get to determine the punishment) so the relative "retarded"ness of the means by which they derive a verdict has no bearing (or shouldn't if we could trust our fellow citizens) on the consequences of the verdict.
Sheriffs and district attorneys tend to be elected positions, their platforms usually rely on how many criminals they got off the street, they tend to not split hairs on execution vs. life in prison. Police chiefs aren't elected so life in prison vs. executions doesn't have any value versus aggregate reductions in murders, rapes, b&e's, assaults, etc...
I actually was watching some prison show the other night and it was a special on death row inmates. I forget what state it was, but they had all 3(electric chair, injection, firing squad). They actually had an old guy on there that signed up for and chose death by firing squad. Said he wanted to go out with some pride and all of them looking him in the eyes. Fuck it, less money + if they already have a couple of options available they might as well add firing squad.
)
I don't understand why it requires 5 people to shoot at a distance. Wouldn't it be easier and more accurate to get one or two people to shoot at point blank range?
It's not at all a contradiction - meaning both punishments are an equal deterrent in the course of every day conflict. You cut me off on the road, the fact that I could face either one of those punishments is deterrent enough for me to simply tell you to fuck off, rather than chase you down and kill you. In that sense they are a deterrent. If the punishment were 6 months in jail I might risk it. Once a person decides they are going to kill somebody though, whether the punishment is life in prison or death penalty ceases to be a factor because the definition of a 1st degree murder is one that is planned out. The perpetrator has given forethought to his actions and went ahead with the plan. They have obviously decided the punishment is irrelevant because they have taken the time to plan the murder which means they intend to get away with it.
That's the problem. You're putting the lives of people in the hands of the same dumb fucks that buy our free trials. The average person is not very bright and makes lots of mistakes. Like I said - The Innocence Project has saved 254 lives already, but what about all the people put to death before they existed?
Yeah, petty much. I don't trust the government to spend my money wisely. I sure don't trust them to whack the guilty guy 100% of the time.
Letting rapist-murderers live is a real sumbitch, but waaaayyy too guys convicted of murder have been found later to be innocent.
Yup, they should just off them right away. Infact right after they convicted.
Take them to a room on the side of the court and shoot them, feed them to pigs.