3. Execution.
Are you (Dems, not you personally) going to finally stand up for capital punishment or continue to cry about it? I wouldn't get my hopes up. Have you seen the liberal-dominated cities' approach to punishment?
3. Execution.
Are you (Dems, not you personally) going to finally stand up for capital punishment or continue to cry about it? I wouldn't get my hopes up. Have you seen the liberal-dominated cities' approach to punishment?
The problem with capital punishment is simply that we are very, very bad at due process and, you know, making sure people are actually guilty. There's nothing inherently wrong with society killing people who should be killed. I'm just really, really appalled by the idea of killing people who were actually innocent. Which we have done far too many times.
That's probably not a purely liberal answer, but whatever. This thread started with a white woman questioning whether it was okay to mourn a white woman because she was white, so I'm not going to get up on a soap box about ideology.
We should execute many mare people than we do, tbh. Should be a points system, accumulate enough points, prove you can’t exist in society without committing crime, get executed. Too many people that just keep getting arrested repeatedly that society would be better off without.
Since when did young conservative women affect a valley girl vocal fry?
@oneeyedundertaker execute more. Shoot a gun regardless of result you get life. There’s white collar people serving longer sentences than attempted murder. White collar get out of the jails. Make them live miserably with obscene fines and restitution. Revoke homestead for them etc.
3. Execution.
Are you (Dems, not you personally) going to finally stand up for capital punishment or continue to cry about it? I wouldn't get my hopes up. Have you seen the liberal-dominated cities' approach to punishment?
The problem with capital punishment is simply that we are very, very bad at due process and, you know, making sure people are actually guilty. There's nothing inherently wrong with society killing people who should be killed. I'm just really, really appalled by the idea of killing people who were actually innocent. Which we have done far too many times.
That's probably not a purely liberal answer, but whatever. This thread started with a white woman questioning whether it was okay to mourn a white woman because she was white, so I'm not going to get up on a soap box about ideology.
I'm not trying to hijack the thread, but I think this is an important tangent to discuss.
To me, your perspective above lacks depth. I acknowledge it was purposeful (not trying to engage in a full-fledged debate), but I think this discussion merits a deeper dive.
To your point, it isn't a liberal ideology that innocent people don't deserve to be killed. That being said, look at how far things have gone the other direction over time. It's pretty clear that the pendulum has swung too far.
Start with the old school justice where hangings, shootings, and other public executions were regularly used, alongside other physical punishments (cutting off a finger, etc.). The Enlightenment movement advocates prisons over physical punishment under the guise of proportionality. I think we could reach some consensus, or at least come close to it, on what that should look like. For instance, if a starving 18-year-old steals a loaf of bread and has no prior record, most of us would agree that the sentence shouldn't be to cut off their hand.
From there, we've gone even further with the reformation movement, with many liberals and religious conservatives (starting all the way back with Quakers) pushing for prisoner reform and advocating that circumstances were a cause and treatment (mental and otherwise) can be used to change people. Here again, I think much of the board or political spectrum could reach a quasi-consensus that some prisoners and convicts can be reformed. But circumstances and context are where the legal framework and reality break down.
There are many people who have been convicted of 20+ crimes who continue to be let out on parole, or otherwise, and end up committing murder and other violent crimes. Under no circumstances should someone who continues to commit crimes on a double-digit scale be allowed to roam free in society. Period. This is part of the right's outrage when it comes to cases like Iryna Zarutska, recent Chicago attacks, Seattle assault, etc. These acts aren't being committed by people without a record or risk of societal violence.
Moreover, those who have been convicted by a jury, and even more importantly, those who confessed to violent crimes, should never be allowed out of prison EARLY just because they didn't misbehave in that environment. It's insanity to think that someone in a SuperMax who didn't get into altercations or cause major problems is suddenly worthy of serving a half sentence. Literally, that is an insane, irrational thought to have. The entire premise of sentencing is to punish people for a crime they committed. Who the hell decided that it would be a good idea to reduce the punishment for some of these people? Worse yet, prison reformationists are crying about the conditions of our prisons without giving a care in the world about the people they've taken a life from (I'm including rape and other forms of mental impact, not just physically taking a life) or their families. If you confess to raping and murdering a young girl, why should anyone care about your conditions? Your life should not matter once you have determined such for another innocent person.
The deinstitutionalization movement has flooded society with an increased number of volatile and mentally unstable individuals, not just the homeless population. It is improbable to think that this continued movement (outpatient mental health) is compatible with reformation, yet the proponents are similar, if not the same. It does nothing to deal with the true psychos amongst us, and there is nothing to compel these sick people to get better inside a controlled environment.
All that said, I've long been a proponent of harsher and stricter punishment, including capital punishment. There are a few people who have been executed in recent years who didn't have a long history of being a shitbag. To me, I'd rather a few shitbags get executed for a crime they didn't commit, despite having been long convicted of various other crimes. If that deters even one innocent person from being murdered, society will be better off.
It should also be noted that as evidence and science improve (e.g., technology tracking, DNA testing, video, etc.), the likelihood of false convictions will continue to decline. There have been instrumental gains in the past 20 years.
In summary, both points are true. We have undoubtedly executed people who were innocent of the crimes they were accused of. However, we have many more pieces of shit (I cannot think of a better way to describe this group) who are not serving the sentences they deserve.
@jdb Soros has been a major step back in public safety. On numerous levels
3. Execution.
Are you (Dems, not you personally) going to finally stand up for capital punishment or continue to cry about it? I wouldn't get my hopes up. Have you seen the liberal-dominated cities' approach to punishment?
The problem with capital punishment is simply that we are very, very bad at due process and, you know, making sure people are actually guilty. There's nothing inherently wrong with society killing people who should be killed. I'm just really, really appalled by the idea of killing people who were actually innocent. Which we have done far too many times.
That's probably not a purely liberal answer, but whatever. This thread started with a white woman questioning whether it was okay to mourn a white woman because she was white, so I'm not going to get up on a soap box about ideology.
I'm not trying to hijack the thread, but I think this is an important tangent to discuss.
To me, your perspective above lacks depth. I acknowledge it was purposeful (not trying to engage in a full-fledged debate), but I think this discussion merits a deeper dive.
To your point, it isn't a liberal ideology that innocent people don't deserve to be killed. That being said, look at how far things have gone the other direction over time. It's pretty clear that the pendulum has swung too far.
Start with the old school justice where hangings, shootings, and other public executions were regularly used, alongside other physical punishments (cutting off a finger, etc.). The Enlightenment movement advocates prisons over physical punishment under the guise of proportionality. I think we could reach some consensus, or at least come close to it, on what that should look like. For instance, if a starving 18-year-old steals a loaf of bread and has no prior record, most of us would agree that the sentence shouldn't be to cut off their hand.
From there, we've gone even further with the reformation movement, with many liberals and religious conservatives (starting all the way back with Quakers) pushing for prisoner reform and advocating that circumstances were a cause and treatment (mental and otherwise) can be used to change people. Here again, I think much of the board or political spectrum could reach a quasi-consensus that some prisoners and convicts can be reformed. But circumstances and context are where the legal framework and reality break down.
There are many people who have been convicted of 20+ crimes who continue to be let out on parole, or otherwise, and end up committing murder and other violent crimes. Under no circumstances should someone who continues to commit crimes on a double-digit scale be allowed to roam free in society. Period. This is part of the right's outrage when it comes to cases like Iryna Zarutska, recent Chicago attacks, Seattle assault, etc. These acts aren't being committed by people without a record or risk of societal violence.
Moreover, those who have been convicted by a jury, and even more importantly, those who confessed to violent crimes, should never be allowed out of prison EARLY just because they didn't misbehave in that environment. It's insanity to think that someone in a SuperMax who didn't get into altercations or cause major problems is suddenly worthy of serving a half sentence. Literally, that is an insane, irrational thought to have. The entire premise of sentencing is to punish people for a crime they committed. Who the hell decided that it would be a good idea to reduce the punishment for some of these people? Worse yet, prison reformationists are crying about the conditions of our prisons without giving a care in the world about the people they've taken a life from (I'm including rape and other forms of mental impact, not just physically taking a life) or their families. If you confess to raping and murdering a young girl, why should anyone care about your conditions? Your life should not matter once you have determined such for another innocent person.
The deinstitutionalization movement has flooded society with an increased number of volatile and mentally unstable individuals, not just the homeless population. It is improbable to think that this continued movement (outpatient mental health) is compatible with reformation, yet the proponents are similar, if not the same. It does nothing to deal with the true psychos amongst us, and there is nothing to compel these sick people to get better inside a controlled environment.
All that said, I've long been a proponent of harsher and stricter punishment, including capital punishment. There are a few people who have been executed in recent years who didn't have a long history of being a shitbag. To me, I'd rather a few shitbags get executed for a crime they didn't commit, despite having been long convicted of various other crimes. If that deters even one innocent person from being murdered, society will be better off.
It should also be noted that as evidence and science improve (e.g., technology tracking, DNA testing, video, etc.), the likelihood of false convictions will continue to decline. There have been instrumental gains in the past 20 years.
In summary, both points are true. We have undoubtedly executed people who were innocent of the crimes they were accused of. However, we have many more pieces of shit (I cannot think of a better way to describe this group) who are not serving the sentences they deserve.
I have no issue with capital punishment for heinous crimes if the person is guilty (and no doubt about it). For lesser crimes, I think the goal should be rehabilitation.
Should everyone who kills someone get due process and have their guilt or innocence determined in court?
Should anyone be able to kill someone without having their innocence or guilt determined by a judge or jury?
Should LEOs be allowed to administer punishment on the spot and bypass due process?
@hurryinghoosiers Huh? A better path isn't difficult. It's to vote out all blue dems that govern cities and pray the Soros' funding dries up. Then harsh sentencing for gun crimes. for illegal gun possession. obnoxiously high bonds. no cash bonds. etc. rot. and no bail projects with third parties funding it. i'm cool with bondsman but limit what they can do, limit cash, and limit 10 percent. go back to some form of three strikers. increase budgets for cops. and figure out some way to incentivize parenting as Desantis was trying to do. Get fathers involved. Either with financial rewards or charging them for the crimes their minors commit. i don't know. maybe both. but black kids are a trainwreck. then figure out a way to hammer these leftist indoctrinated schools that are failing all over the country.
first and foremost we have to kill of woke. no aoc. no newsom. no harris. no scam likely. no. more. woke!
@hurryinghoosiers https://fox2now.com/news/missouri/juveniles-detained-as-police-investigate-break-ins-during-cardinals-game/
The detectives stopped the juveniles in the 900 block of North 10th St. A 14-year-old boy was found in possession of a handgun that had been stolen in a car break-in the night prior.
Mazzola said the 14-year-old was brought to the juvenile building and was later released to a parent.
the above cannot go on. a 14 year old with a stolen gun. breaking into cars during the baseball game. now back on the streets. and this happens every night of the week. the left ideology and lack of common sense and removal from reality leaves everyone in danger. the system isn't set up to deal with 14 year olds running around with guns. we need a mass overhaul.
imagine i'm walking to teh car with my minion after the ball game.
blacks are ruining cities. and blue progressive dems are ruining cities. and we need to be honest about it and how to fix it
You don't need to kill people at the margins to tamp down on crime. Like Goat said our due process and jury system is flawed enough that some innocents will slip through the cracks. "Better 100 guilty persons should escape..." and all that jazz. I think the deterrent effect is likely marginal as well, I'm sure there a studies on the question.
The guy that killed a CPD officer as referenced in the Chicago thread seems a prime candidate for Capital punishment. Shot a two cops in cold blood, killed one, other is fighting for his life. Next to zero doubt he did it.
Except that guy had a detention request from the SA that wasn't honored by the judge in question. How bout just honor the detainer and the cop is still alive and the guy can spend 25 to life in a cell for his myraid other crimes.