When you make enough noise with your lies, eventually the squeaky wheel gets the grease. These people need to watch more Mitchell & Webb. Yes. You are the bad guys.
sounds like life without parole thus far. Imo that's the worse sentence anyway. I'm against the death penalty only in the sense that letting them suffer for their entire lives, looking over their shoulder for who might kill them is imo much worse. Death penalty is the easy way out. Though obviously my tune might change if it was one of my children who got gunned down. I mean the whole point of this is justice for the families, however they see that. If justice for them looks like the death penalty, then I hope that's what he gets. And he only needs to get it on one count.
Judging by some of the faces of the families, I'd say it does. They look ready to tear him limb from limb, and rightly so.
That, added with the cops being too scared to save their lives. Some parents are as angry with that chickenshit Peterson as they are with Cruz.
I'm against the death penalty because we keep discovering "oopsies" where we locked up some random black guy who lived on the same block, and let the real killer/rapist/etc wander free to commit a dozen more crimes over the last thirty years.
I’m for the state killing anyone who commits a mass murder. This includes the femcel that murdered a bunch of NICU babies in the UK.
I completely agree with your sentiment on the death penalty. It's the ultimate punishment that can't be reversed and there's been plenty of people proven innocent after being put to death. I do have to ask why you chose to say random black guy. I get that black people face a harsher legal system than I do but in this context why does it matter? I'm not being snarky, but generally curious. Is it just to point out the fact the legal system is slanted against them so it should be brought up every time?
For a number of political, socioeconomic, and judicial factors they tend to get harsher sentences, worse legal representation, and less considered treatment by police. As a result they are more likely to be wrongfully suspected if innocent, wrongfully convicted if suspected, and wrongfully sentenced to death if convicted. Thus they tend to be overrepresented in Innocence Project type narratives.
I understand all of that. But in the context of the death penalty as a whole it struck me as odd. Either way we both agree that its wrong to kill someone based on a court verdict. You can let someone out of prison but unless we got a Lazarus situation they're not coming back from the dead if the legal system messes up.
Im ferrr’ it’ but should be limited to obvious grand slam vile cases like this. Then if the proof is so overwhelming you get less appeals. Cut down on those state legal cost. I’m not religious and don’t believe in an afterlife. A living hell to me in prison is preferable to the black nothingness of non existence. Even if it’s “death is what the convicted wants” living in our existence is better than not. Fun fact is these high profile prisoners are highly segregated and don’t live with constant physical and mental torture from other inmates like everyone assumes. I think the Russians had it right. Bullet behind the ear and we can all move on. The “my mom drank when she was pregnant and my daddy abused me” is a horseshit defense to escape your comeuppance. Remove these people from society like a rabid dog.
The problem is we don't really have a mechanism for that. There's no practical distinction between "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" and "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but like... super duper and we promise we didn't make a mistake."
What I’m saying in my theoretical situation the proof would be so overwhelming that reasonable doubt wouldn’t really even apply. Video a child pornographer makes of himself raping an infant. Skip the lengthy appeals. Straight to bullet in the head. The type of proof a government couldn’t fuck up.
But what's the actual mechanism? Right now our mechanism is "12 randomly drawn citizens agree," which is better than "the King's brother decides" or whatever the Brits do, but it obviously still yields mistakes. What would be the standard for determining this enhanced "overwhelming" proof? Bigger juries? Multiple trials?
Death penalty, life in prison, overwhelming evidence, blah, blah, blah.... I've been following the Parkland case just to see the judge.
I'm against the death penalty in the majority of cases because of the reason you gave regardless of race. However, in rare cases like this when we are absolutely certain of guilt I'm all for it. Save a bunch of money and execute them.