Our hearts are being judged by God. "Let those without sin cast the first stone." "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the gates of heaven." You are not capable of knowing what is in the hearts of men.
We are capable of judging actions and administering justice in a lawful society. Killing in self defense, or in war---is not murder. Neither is lawful execution as justice for the taking of human life.
The only way to deter crime is to make the penalties greater than the criminals are willing to pay. I would call for an expansion of the use of the death penalty. Such as for repeat felons. Why keep them on the gravy train for life? For those convicted for rape and murder, bring back impelling. Cruel and unusual? But so is rape and murder. Here is an idea. Take all those sentenced to death and invite them to take part in a game show. The show is simple. They have to run across the berms of a rifle range while the shooters are shooting. The shooter that hits a convict gets a cash prize. The contest continues until only one convict remains. That remaining convict is rewarded a full pardon. What do you think? (Most of this is submitted as tung in cheek. It is up to the reader to decide which part!)
I'm not sure that I agree with that rationale. In a lot of crimes, the criminals are not expecting to ever get caught, which is why they commit the crime. Certainty of punishment is a more effective deterrent than amount of punishment. Only in the case of theft and fraud of large amounts of money does what you say hold true, but those are usually not death penalty cases. Oftentimes they will however sentence prisoners serving life sentences to the death penalty if they kill someone in prison, since those persons don't have much else to lose. (There have even be a few controversial cases where it was arguable that the killing might not have really been a "murder", but the prisoner was still sentenced to the death penalty)
the guy who taught criminal law when I was a IL had been the death penalty lead public defender in LA before taking a teaching position. He told us his research had strongly suggested that if every person who committed first degree murder was guaranteed 8 years in prison (which is what you get if you divide all the sentences for murder vs all the cases of murder-many of which (usually involving mopes killing mopes) are not solved) that would stop far more murders than say if one out of 3 murderers was -as he put it-boiled in oil publicly. IT WAS THE CERTAINTY of punishment that deters mopes, not how brutal the punishment is. BTW the most likely serious crime to get time for is bank robbery.
No, its not murder, but it is barbaric, and given the endless rounds of appeals its also a waste of taxpayer money.
I'm not proposing such a lofty ideal, but any improvement is an improvement. It's fairly obvious that the incarceration approach doesn't work as a preventative, isn't it? People know they're doing the wrong thing but, often out of desperation or due lack of cognitive control, they do it anyhow.
How about they commit crimes because they know there will be no consequences? That's what the no bail laws tell people. Commit the crime, you won't go to jail. Steal less than $950 in California and it's okay. The trouble is, it's not okay. Stores close; people lose jobs; and the neighborhood loses essential services like food and drug stores. I know why you guys passed the no bail laws. You think too many people are in jail in the United States. Okay, we have tried your solution, and it has failed. Do you want to change it, or continue down the present path?
No, it does not mean there won't be consequences, because if you are found guilty, you still go to prison. Theft under $950 is a misdemeanor, which can result in prison time, and anything over it is a felony. Here in Florida the limit is $750, and I doubt there are any States which consider any theft a felony. Only 1 State has eliminated it.
Barbaric is an emotional term, not objective. For instance, is it barbaric to shoot or stab someone in self defense? Should we choose to die in order to not be barbaric? Regarding the death penalty...is it barbaric and expensive to keep someone in isolation while on death row as the appeals go through? Sure. Is it better to give them life and allow them the opportunity to murder someone else? I don't think so. Like I mentioned earlier...I have a relative in prison...not for murder...and he shouldn't be put at risk because people don't want to be "barbaric".
No. Self defense is not barbaric, since you are fighting for your life. I am totally supportive of it. Walking a prisoner thorough the corridors to be put to death is something which was normal in the middle ages, and today its practiced only in Iran, China, Saudi Arabia and few other barbaric states. And it has done nothing to reduce crime. It's remnant of an uncivilized society, but I accept it as a fact of life and I agree is should be a State level decision (which its is). There are people who are pure evil, but IMO locking them up for life in isolation without parole is an appropriate punishment. How are they going to murder someone in isolation? Well, he is at risk every day if he is in general population. He took that risk when he committed his crime. However, the worst of the worst are not held in general population today, and I dont see why that should change. They are kept in isolation at maximum security and supermax prisons, which is how States with no death penalty handles the situation.
It's more expensive to execute them because lawyers and courts cost more than prison guards and prisons. Deterrence works more by odds of being caught, not by whether they will spend life in prison or be executed. Basically, capital punishment is pointless and barbaric.
The problem with the death penalty is that it can not be undone. And it's all cute and all, to go like... but this person we are sure he did this and so, and hence: death penalty. But it's still on a slippery scale. People lie under oath. People are pressured to tell a story that incriminates them that aint true. And cops are human too. It's not as if no evidence ever got fabricated for the sake to have the crime solved. Poor people being suspected can't afford a lawyer and so end up with a total loser not giving a damn as a lawyer. We got iffy jury selections where a bunch of amateurs are being played like fiddle by experts putting up a show. And your motivation to just have a potentially person get executed for a crime it did not make is: it'll be cheap Nice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_Project 69% of the exonerations are due to eyewitnesses being wrong 52% of the exonerations are due to misapplication of forensic science Indeed. That's over a 100%. Some serious convictions got 2 massive flaws leading to overturning everything. Reason enough to really never send somebody to the chair or something... because it'll be cheap.
yeah well. He did kill innocent Egyptian male babies without any sin. He also supported the genocide in Canaan, where even the cattle had to be massacred along with the civilian population.
Hence clear cut. That means, the perpetrator stood there infront of a crowd and stabbed someone who died. The police turned up and arrested the perpetrator holding the bloody knife (bloody as in the knife was covered in blood). Everyone keeps missing the CLEAR CUT part. Search for Lee Rigby, you can't get a more clear cut case. Why are the two perpetrators in jail? They should have hanged same day, next at worst.
Oh sure. You got clear cut. But the death penalty isn't given in such clear cut instances at all. It's not part of the law as far as I know.
You take the latest mass shooting, if he hadn't shot himself, what would have happened? Locked up for life? On death row for God's know how long? And you guys would have had to foot the incarnation cost. He's there, he's on camera, he was shooting people. You can't get more clear cut than that. So why the incarnation bill? What would he appeal about? So that type of case, the perpetrator should be hung the next day. That's what the law needs changed to, not just on America. Society has suffered enough cost over the shootings, why on earth fork out incarnation costs? Thankfully, he shot himself.
The problem is not that guy, the problem is that other people have been put on death row and found innocent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exonerated_death_row_inmates And when you look at that list, you'll see that the list is quiet long.
