I am not sure that an innocent person serving life is that much better. It would be better to fix our outdated legal system.
Are any future minds being poisoned by him continuing to present his ideological beliefs to anyone willing to listen?
You would have difficulty choosing between a life sentence, with a possibility of exoneration, and death? The fix would be to outlaw the death penalty.
Fix the legal system and put those that need to be put to death to death. There are plenty clear cut cases that don't need a 20 year appeal process. Fix the broken legal system.
The problem with that mindset is that it is open for capricious and arbitrary decisions to be made and that's how mistakes are made.
I used to be of the opinion that those that commit willful murder deserve the same fate as their victims. However, that would seem to violate the Constitution. Part of what changed my opinion is the court system has turned into a competition of attorneys, where, as in sports competition, money tend to buy the best team. If you have it, your chances of walking are far better than if you have no resources; thus, justice is not equal under the law. Another reason that added to my opposition is If I had to choose between life in prison and death, a life in prison would be the worst punishment I can think of, death would be far easier. With an sentencing evil to life is far more fitting than an easy death and if an innocent is wrongly convicted as can happen in our system, there is always the potential for a conviction to be remedied. There are a few heinous categories of crime I could see using the death penalty for, one where the perpetrator receives the same fate as their victim, but I would set the bar far higher than what exists now in a conviction to justify the death penalty.
A great deal of which could be resolved before the matter ever went to trial, if deadly force for self defense was not so strongly objected to by the united states legal system.
The death penalty is most definitely not against the constitution. One can say it is in the constitution. Life in prison is not worse than death. People adapt. Their new life is life. Being on death row is far worse. And I do agree our court system is the problem. Which is what needs to be fixed first. Is that possible? Most likely not.
I was referring to my thinking of a murder being subjected to the same fate as the victims. Often a murderer inflicts a victim to a cruel death. It by definition is prohibited by the BOR. As for life in prison being the worse than death, I qualified my statement by indicating it was a subjective assessment.
Well, deadly force is justified by police offices at the same instant it's available to any citizen, in the presence of an imminent threat that can be reasonably presumed to result in death or grave physical harm. I have no issue with that, and neither do US Juries, on the whole. Qualified Immunity though is an entirely different thing. Trump's Reformation of the Judiciary: Supreme Court Will Soon Decide Whether To Reconsider Qualified Immunity. It should abolish it. It’s a judge-created doctrine with zero basis in the Constitution. It's long past time to abolish qualified immunity, an atextual, ahistorical judicial doctrine that shields state officials from liability, even when they violate people's constitutional rights. The most immediate practical goal of this campaign has been to convince the Supreme Court to hear one of the many cases calling for qualified immunity to be either narrowed or reconsidered outright. Several times the Court has indicated that it's preparing to consider several qualified immunity cases. Just today, the Supreme Court distributed eight different qualified immunity cert petitions for its conference of May 15, 2020. This is obviously no coincidence, and it means that by the morning of Monday, May 18th, we will finally know whether the Justices are prepared to confront one of the most pernicious and legally baseless doctrines in the history of the Court. Baxter v. Bracey. In this case, Sixth Circuit granted qualified immunity to two officers who deployed a police dog against a suspect who had already surrendered and was sitting on the ground with his hands up. Brennan v. Dawson. In this case, the Sixth Circuit granted immunity to a police officer who, in an attempt to administer an alcohol breath test to a man on misdemeanor probation, parked his car in front of the man’s home at 8:00 pm; turned the lights and sirens on for over an hour; circled the man’s house five to ten times, peering into and knocking on windows; and wrapped the home’s security camera in police tape. Zadeh v. Robinson and Corbitt v. Vickers. Zadeh is the case where the Fifth Circuit granted immunity to state investigators that entered a doctor’s office and, without notice and without a warrant, demanded to rifle through the medical records of 16 patients. And Corbitt is the case where the Eleventh Circuit granted immunity to a deputy sheriff who shot a ten‐year‐old child lying on the ground, while repeatedly attempting to shoot a pet dog that wasn’t posing any threat. Kelsay v. Ernst. This is the case where the Eighth Circuit, in an 8–4 en banc decision, granted immunity to a police officer who grabbed a small woman in a bear hug and slammed her to ground, breaking her collarbone and knocking her unconscious, all because she walked away from him after he told her to “get back here.” West v. Winfield. In this case, the Ninth Circuit granted immunity to police officers who bombarded an innocent woman's home with tear-gas grenades. The homeowner had given the officers permission to enter her home to look for a suspect, but never consented to anything like the practical destruction of her home that resulted. Jessop v. City of Fresno. In this case, the Ninth Circuit granted immunity to police officers who stole over $225,000 in cash and rare coins in the course of executing a search warrant. Hunter v. Cole. Of all the qualified immunity cases going to conference on May 15th, this is the only one in which the lower court denied immunity to the defendants. In this case, the Fifth Circuit denied immunity to an officer who shot a 17-year-old boy without warning. This is a question that Justice Thomas urged the Court to take up all the way back in 2017. This would be a BOLD stroke for Freedom and Liberty.
unfortunately, when you actually start getting into the details, there are numerous trade-offs, between cost, practicality, protecting individual rights, preventing actual guilty or dangerous people from slipping through the cracks, etc. If you really tried to solve the problem, you would start realizing how complicated it is. Evidence and witnesses can start combining together in ways that the law never really specifically anticipated. One big problem with the current system is the officials in charge are overburdened, have limited time per case, are apathetic and often don't really care, and are almost never held responsible for bad decisions. Much of this is an issue of money/resources, and some of it is a structural issue of centralized control (which again, has its trade-offs).
Capital punishment has always exerted a beneficial eugenic effect because it removed those with crime genes from the gene pool. This is why races that have practiced civilization the longest have the lowest crime rates. In addition, capital punishment satisfies the desire for revenge by those who have lost loved ones to murders.
I do not follow my party blindly. Even though I'm a far right Conservative, I consider myself an ethical one, and a logical one, and follow my beliefs as well. To me, from a Godly, and Biblical sense, aint no body gots no rights to judge another human being, even if they judge someone themselves. I believe abortion is murder, and judging another human being, just like I believe, that the death penalty, is judging a human being as well. Only Jesus Christ has the right to judge a human. However, I also don't believe in allowing felons the right to vote, such as murderers and rapists, like vermont, and maine allows. These are socialist liberal states. Bernie Sanders, the King of the far left wingers in America, the King of Socialist, wannabe. and yet loves all of his Freedoms he gets from America's values, and capitalism. He got rich off of Capitalism!
~ I used to be pro death when I was young and not paying attention. Now I see death as a useless barbaric act that no longer belongs in a civilized society . In general, I am dismayed at much of our penal system, law enforcement in general and the courts. Our prisons are only good for punishment and are rarely conducive to rehabilitation and meaningful correction.
most of the rehabilitation system is only about money. There are many good workers who actually care about their patience, with good intentions, the main problem is that when the system is corrupt, there is no way to overcome it, because they can fire anyone of them at any given time, and replace them with woke politically correct people, who could care less, that are just as corrupt as their masters/donors.
Is there no way to try to sort convicted murderers into two groups, those who are definitely guilty and those who might be innocent? Or is people's thinking too black and white to be able to try to do that? Or how about just save the death penalty for the very worst type of murders? That seems to be what they do in states that are on the borderline between not wanting the death penalty but not wanting to entirely do away with it altogether either. The number of executions is very low, and they try to save it for only the very worst cases, the worst of the murder cases.
I’m for the death penalty, but in cases of two or more. A murderer who willfully kills several is not getting out of prison no matter how much he regrets it later or is rehabilitated. So the point of locking them up for the rest of their lives serves no beneficial purpose to society, but is simply a waste of money. Multiply that by thousands and you’ve created a mini-society of people going nowhere and I suspect after 20 years alone in a cell, many of them will wish they’d been executed in the first place. If someone is never going to be released, what exactly is the point of keeping them alive? Revenge? It’s certainly not a deterrent as murder statistics rise. Would the death penalty reduce the amount of murders if those committing them knew for a certainty they would have to pay for it with their own lives?
I just wonder how many lives could have been saved if the crazies doing drive by shootings for kicks, or the serial school shooters knew that at the end of their fifteen minutes of fame a noose awaited them and not a cell with TV and lots of fan mail from other wannabe crazies.
It's kind of ironic how many who are against the death penalty tend to be pro-abortion. Spare the guilty and kill the innocent.
