I don't trust the government to convict only guilty people 100% of the time. It's more expensive to execute people than keep them in prison for life. So I am 100% opposed to giving government the authority to execute people.
There is no benefit to doing that. I'm not interested in paying more to allow the government to kill innocent people. The only benefit to killing them quickly would be to save space and expense. But it costs more to kill them, so it's pointless. More than pointless because our judicial system would (and does ) execute innocent people. I'm opposed. Full stop.
I care little about the monetary costs. Mass shooters need to die. No appeals. No defense of "mental impairments". You kill people, you die. Quickly. Hopefully painfully.
I don't believe this for a second ....you can execute someone with a bullet. You have to fix their teeth and give them medical and housing for life...in the case of a 20 year old, that's a long period to house someone on your own dime. I do believe they make mistakes in some cases but not in the case of a mass shooter....that's not a mistake anyone will make.
Ive disputed this too. What makes it more is all the beauracracy regarding the death sentence. It doesn't actually cost more, we just MAKE it cost more.
Yeah, I don't see how it can cost more and if they are for sure guilty like a mass shooter it makes sense to me.
An authoritarian can, for sure. Not a democracy that wants to be sure it doesn't execute innocent people. In a democracy you have to do that to kill them as well. But you also have to fight years and years of appeals. It's a very long and very expensive and difficult process for the government to legally kill an American. I wouldn't support any less. I don't trust the government not to make that mistake. I don't trust Trump, or DeSantis, or Abbot to not abuse that power. And I'm not blood thirsty enough to overlook that possibility with regards to government power. Especially not after January 6th.
Isn't our judicial system already supposed to only convict people who are "for sure guilty"? Like, shouldn't that be the standard for everybody? Yet, we all know it's not. We've seen proof that it's not.
convicted felons on death row are not civil and gave up their rights when convicted of murder. Its the years of beauracracy l, once an individual is on death row, that costs. This, once convicted and given the death penalty, should not then linger for years, escalating the costs to make if more to end someone's life, then life in prison. No one can argue it costs less to put someone to death, than it does to pay for someones life in prison costs. Im not talking about all the legistislation costs, im referring to the costs of three meals a day, the housing(prison) costs, the costs of guards watching them etc is going to cost more than a shot of electricity, a death pill, a hangmans noose or a bullet. Civil rights are rights of those who are civil. A convicted murderer is not civil and should not be afforded those rights. If the crime was bad enough that the courts deemed the death penalty should be involved, then it can be done at a far less cost than it is currently costing.
Exactly. I'm not necessarily anti-death penalty, but we know there are still innocent people sitting on death row. That alone makes me hesitant. Personally I'd rather a guilty murderer be fed, housed, etc. for life than an innocent person executed. Stories from groups like the Equal Justice Initiative have opened my eyes to issues in the judicial system.
Rights of Inmates Created by FindLaw's team of legal writers and editors | Last updated July 20, 2017 Even the most chronic or hardened inmates have basic rights that are protected by the U.S. Constitution. If you are facing incarceration, or if you have a family member or friend who is in prison or jail, you should know about inmates' rights. The rights of inmates include the following: The right to humane facilities and conditions The right to be free from sexual crimes The right to be free from racial segregation The right to express condition complaints The right to assert their rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act The right to medical care and attention as needed The right to appropriate mental health care The right to a hearing if they are to be moved to a mental health facility The Right to Humane Facilities and Conditions Pre-trial detainee must be housed in humane facilities; they cannot be "punished" or treated as guilty while they await trial. Inmates also have the right to be free, under the Eighth Amendment of "cruel and unusual" punishment; the term noted by the Supreme Court is any punishment that can be considered inhumane treatment or that violates the basic concept of a person's dignity may be found to be cruel and unusual. For example, an inmate held in a 150-year-old prison infested with vermin, fire hazards, and a lack of toilets would exemplify a constitutional violation. The Right to be Free from Sexual Crime An inmate cannot be subjected to sexual crimes including sexual harassment. The Prison Rape Elimination Act protects prisoners. The Right to be Free from Racial Segregation Inmates cannot be racial segregated in prisons, except where necessary for preserving discipline and prison security. The Right to Express Complaints Inmates can complain about prison conditions and have a right of access to the courts to air these complaints. The Right to Assert ADA Rights Disabled prisoners are entitled to assert their rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act to ensure that they are allowed access to prison programs/ facilities that they are qualified and able to participate in. The Right to Medical Care/Attention Inmates are entitled to medical care and attention as needed to treat both short-term conditions and long-term illnesses. The medical care provided must be "adequate." The Right to Appropriate Mental Health Care Inmates who need mental health care are entitled to receive that treatment in a manner that is appropriate under the circumstances. The treatment must be "adequate." The Right to a Hearing Inmates are entitled to a hearing if they are to be moved to a mental health facility. However, an inmate is not always entitled to a hearing if he or she is being moved between two similar facilities. A mentally ill inmate is not entitled to a full-blown hearing before the government may force him or her to take anti-psychotic drugs against his or her will. It is sufficient if there is an administrative hearing before independent medical professionals. Limitations on Inmates' Rights Inmates retain only those First Amendment rights, such as freedom of speech, which are not inconsistent with their status as inmates and which are in keeping with the legitimate objectives of the penal corrections system, such as preservation of order, discipline, and security. In this regard, prison officials are entitled to open mail directed to inmates to ensure that it does not contain any illegal items or weapons, but may not censor portions of correspondence which they find merely inflammatory or rude. Inmates are entitled, under the Due Process Clause of the Constitution, to be free from unauthorized and intentional deprivation of their personal property by prison officials. However, Inmates do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their prison cells and are not protected from "shakedowns," or searches of their cells to look for weapons, drugs, or other contraband.
I'm talking about mass shooters who are demonstrably guilty...not suspects who they think are guilty. Anyone show me a case where a mass shooter or murderer caught redhanded for murder was executed as an innocent person? We're not talking about pre DNA test detective work, we're talking about people caught redhanded in the act of murder....I'm pro death penalty for all those assholes period. When an asshole kills teachers and children in a school, I'm not concerned with their civil rights....I'm concerned with their ability to plead insanity, get out and repeat the crime or get a mistrial or hung jury verdict. Murdering innocent people should be a simple conviction. Most of the innocents convicted unfairly were pre DNA testing rape cases that sometimes included murder but required detective work to find an actual suspect.....shooters who go public and are on camera or caught in the act don't get the benefit of the doubt from me.
Can you provide an example in the USA where a mass shooter killed people, plead insanity, then got out and committed another mass shooting/killing?
no....but there are cases where murderers got out of jail and repeated the crime from a hung jury or mistrial...check the mafia's cases throughout history.
