Because even in those cases those people have the right to due process. That makes killing them more expensive than jailing them for life. The only exception I can think of is if they want to die. But even then, I'm not sure if that would be cheaper. And I don't care if your opinion is that it can be done. My opinion is that it can't. Because it's never been done. We currently execute innocent people. We currently still find people on death row who are innocent. Until we can prove that's not happening I'm not going to support government having the power to kill people. And even if we could prove that wasn't happening, the cost of supporting them for life wouldn't be worth giving government that power anyway. There aren't enough mass murders to cost each of us a penny per year. I'm sorry if that bothers you.
Or just removed, since mistakes mean innocent death, and it doesn't actually help society at all. I don't think blood lust is good justification. Self defense? Absolutely.
It is my opinion. Correct. And that opinion is supported by that fact that we find multiple people on death row who are innocent every year. Every country with the death penalty kills innocent people.
Doesn't bother me at all. Im not the one trying to press my morals on others with statements like others opinions are concerning. I find it funny that you say you don't care about my opinion…but type as if Im supposed to care aBout yours? Others are entitled to their opinion without you trying to hover some moral superiority complex over them you know.. many things have never been done. Doesn't mean it CANT be done. Cant cross the ocean. Cant circle the planet. Cant go to the moon. maybe, just maybe, this can be done too,if actually tried instead of just shot down as it cant happen because it never has??? Laws, governments can all adapt and change.
I get that. The last thing I want or anyone here wants is innocent people going to prison and being put to death. We need a better system as it is. There can be a better system where mass murders in cases the evidence is irrefutable can be put to death faster if they are sentenced to it. Yeah, they have the right to appeal, but an appeal for a person who is on camera murdering people is probably not going to change things for them. That said, put those appeals first on dockets. Get those cases done with. If there is DNA evidence or other evidence that can be refuted put them down the calendar until it becomes certain and they have exhausted their appeals.
I'm all for expediting government processes, no doubt. But I also don't believe we can get seperation on what is and isn't an open and shut case. There are simply too many ways to slow play it. Ways that are there for good reason, and prevent more innocent people from being executed. I think getting where people are saying they want to get will result in more innocent people dying. Not fewer.
If you shoot my grandchild in school and I in turn shoot you...that's not my bloodlust, it's karma for your bloodlust....the murderer harbors bloodlust...not the one who stopped the murderer. I have no bloodlust but in turn I have no tolerance for the bloodlust of killers. According to your theory you should never have a need for a gun because the person you shoot may be innocent until a long drawn out court case convicts them....you are ready to make that decision in a split second if you are armed for defensive purposes....no different from me shooting someone who kills an unarmed child. You have trained yourself to kill someone who threatens you or your loved ones....however you seem to think that's safer than a judicial system or less prone to mistaken judgements? I think that's a clear double standard.
Sure we can. For instance, A murder case where there is video of the person charged and convicted killing people vs say a Murder case where DNA is the main source of evidence.
Ok, so then Trump would have been within his rights to kill Michael Reinoehl. So nothing wrong with how that was handled. There was video evidence... Sorry, killing civilians is not a power a democratic government needs, IMO. In reality it will always result in innocent people being killed by the government, and there is no appreciable benefit to society in allowing it.
I do think there could be a “special circumstances” situation where we fast track someone to death. If they are captured on video, have multiple witnesses, evidence, and/or admit to it (school shooters fall into this category) let’s kill them.
First, I'm not the government. Second, I said it's totally acceptable when under threat or in self defense. In responding with lethal force to an active threat you are doing a public good and defending yourself. Once the suspect has been apprehended the threat is gone. There is no longer a need for animal instincts. There is no benefit to society in encouraging the government killing of civilians.
I don't see what we gain by doing this. The person is no threat in jail. Why do we want government to have this power?
Why clutter up jails and feed them forever? And if punishment is supposed to be a deterrent maybe these quick kills will send a message. Too many think jail is better than their fucked up lives. Let’s move on from Dylan Roof and Nicholas Cruz etc.
Most of these mass murders are going for suicide by cop. That, or they are going for the notoriety of it. And executions would play right into that, by making it a more compelling story. I would submit that the better solution would be to let nonviolent offenders out of prison than to encourage government to kill civilians. Seems like we'd get way more bang for the buck, without the threat of innocent loss of life and without having our government accustomed to killing the population. There are only a very few murderers who would even qualify for the very stringent limits being applied... It wouldn't even save us a penny per person per year as a country. This just doesn't make logical sense in my mind.
