About time taxpayers quit paying for the food and medical etc. to keep these pieces of trash alive. I'd suggest tomorrow, but I guess they're gonna give 'em another 5 or 6 months. Why? Been way way way way way too many years already. One small step for a few men, one kinda medium leap for mankind. Now the states need to jump of the bandwagon. Not Hawaii, of course, because the Democrat socialists know it's mean to kill someone who killed other people.

AG Barr is right to resume death penalty for vicious killers

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/robert-blecker-ag-barr-is-right-to-resume-death-penalty-for-vicious-killers

Attorney General William Barr should be applauded for announcing Thursday that the federal government will resume executing convicted murderers on death row for the first time since 2003, beginning with five vicious killers in December and January.

Saw a video from Tim Pool saying how he's strongly opposed to the death penalty.  Part of his argument is you can be convicted and sentenced whether you're guilty or not.

My opinion has always been to impose capital punishment if guilt is beyond any doubt.  An example would be Timothy McVeigh.  The evidence against him was overwhelming, he confessed, and he even declined the appeals process.  No doubt he was the perpetrator, so the only question would be mitigating circumstances that would avoid the death penalty.  There were none.

Does the death penalty deter capital crimes?  For the inmate put the death, it absolutely does.

Just in time for HRC! 

Just in time for HRC! 

#tinfoil

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

About time taxpayers quit paying for the food and medical etc. to keep these pieces of trash alive. I

Actually it tends to cost more to put them to death than it does to keep them alive so the economic argument is empty.

Actually it tends to cost more to put them to death than it does to keep them alive so the economic argument is empty.

Yeah, very convincing argument you present" "tends to"... that proves it for sure. smh.

Actually it tends to cost more to put them to death than it does to keep them alive so the economic argument is empty.

Right .   
Like deporting illegal aliens cost's more than letting them stay and supporting them.
    

Actually it tends to cost more to put them to death than it does to keep them alive so the economic argument is empty.

How so? 

Actually it tends to cost more to put them to death than it does to keep them alive so the economic argument is empty.

its all about job security for you
catch and release

Actually it tends to cost more to put them to death than it does to keep them alive so the economic argument is empty.

As much as I hate to agree our eyeeater is correct.
The legal costs of all the appeals run up to be more than the cost of a life sentence.
While I support the death penalty. It is useless in America as it takes years.
Knowing what I know about cops, ANY conviction should be very carefully examined.
Juries aren't composed of the best of our population, they are composed of people not smart
enough to get out of it.
I'm more for the 23 hours a day lock down. No human contact,  such as the ADX
in Colorado.

As much as I hate to agree our eyeeater is correct.
The legal costs of all the appeals run up to be more than the cost of a life sentence.
While I support the death penalty. It is useless in America as it takes years.
Knowing what I know about cops, ANY conviction should be very carefully examined.
Juries aren't composed of the best of our population, they are composed of people not smart
enough to get out of it.
I'm more for the 23 hours a day lock down. No human contact,  such as the ADX
in Colorado.

But wouldn't 1 less criminal in jail mean space for another who was released early or charges reduced due to over crowding? Plus the trickle down factor.  Someone serving life has nothing to lose and may do more illegal things in prison because the rules don't apply to them.  Compared to someone on death row, although it may take years, they're gone and can no longer contribute to the prison political system.

Actually it tends to cost more to put them to death than it does to keep them alive so the economic argument is empty.

Not true in all death penalty cases, depending on how long the appeals process takes.  Lawyers are expensive and usually paid by tax payers.  Tim McVeigh waived all appeals. 

Regardless, no matter how much it costs, it's worth it.  Letting them sweat it out on death row awaiting the inevitable conclusion increases the severity of their punishment, and rightly so.

If you have a family member murdered, it's not a question of cost, but of justice.  We spend far more on politicians who do little to nothing that benefits the public.  At least with the death penalty, we're seeing the process upheld to ensure the sentence was appropriate.

If you have a family member murdered, it's not a question of cost, but of justice.  We spend far more on politicians who do little to nothing that benefits the public.  At least with the death penalty, we're seeing the process upheld to ensure the sentence was appropriate.

^^^This if I had a loved one murdered then I would want the guilty party to be executed.  Not live out their lives in jail.  Eye for an eye.

^^^This if I had a loved one murdered then I would want the guilty party to be executed.  Not live out their lives in jail.  Eye for an eye.

I read all the time: "What about [some inmate] who was convicted and sentenced to death, but then was released after evidence proved he didn't commit the crime?"

That's why the appeals process exists, and it's also why I said before we should only execute those we know did it with zero doubt.  If there is  insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond ANY doubt, not just reasonable doubt, then life in prison makes sense.  But, if he confesses, or there's video of the crime, or he left DNA at a scene he never visited AND there is other physical evidence showing guilt (gun with fingerprints found on his person AND bullets match those taken from the victim, etc, etc), then the death penalty is appropriate.  Taking a life requires a life be forfeit.  It's justice, not vengeance.

I read all the time: "What about [some inmate] who was convicted and sentenced to death, but then was released after evidence proved he didn't commit the crime?"

Wouldn't this be a small percentage compared to those who were not proven innocent?  I say we should also give people a choice if they get life or 300 year sentence to be executed.

Wouldn't this be a small percentage compared to those who were not proven innocent?  I say we should also give people a choice if they get life or 300 year sentence to be executed.

There are those who take the extreme view that it's better 100 guilty men go free than for 1 innocent man to be convicted.  That's a stupid talking point.  If we know a man is guilty, that's different than the SYSTEM setting them free in spite of guilt.  If the system convicts an innocent man (which it does now and then), maybe the answer isn't to water down the sentencing "just in case we got it wrong," but to hold people accountable in the event someone puts an innocent person away.  There should be just as much deterrent against incompetence or malicious conduct by prosecutors and investigators as there is for crime.  When what you do can affect the rest of a person's life, the entire process must be above reproach.

if this was your mom or grandmother...
https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2019/07/26/elderly-woman-injured-kalihi-assault-purse-snatching-dies/

with all the lenient judges and nth chances that hardened criminals will turn their lives around - one can only ask how much more do we lawful citizens can we tolerate?

Not true in all death penalty cases, depending on how long the appeals process takes.  Lawyers are expensive and usually paid by tax payers.  Tim McVeigh waived all appeals. 

Regardless, no matter how much it costs, it's worth it.  Letting them sweat it out on death row awaiting the inevitable conclusion increases the severity of their punishment, and rightly so.

If you have a family member murdered, it's not a question of cost, but of justice.  We spend far more on politicians who do little to nothing that benefits the public.  At least with the death penalty, we're seeing the process upheld to ensure the sentence was appropriate.

Thats why I said it tends to, there are always exceptions to the rule.

I am actually for the death penalty as a concept and was just pointing out that the death penalty, as a whole, has not proven to be a money saving thing.

Here is a reference for Puna and anyone else questioning the costs.
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs

As much as I hate to agree our eyeeater is correct.
The legal costs of all the appeals run up to be more than the cost of a life sentence.
While I support the death penalty. It is useless in America as it takes years.
Knowing what I know about cops, ANY conviction should be very carefully examined.
Juries aren't composed of the best of our population, they are composed of people not smart
enough to get out of it.
I'm more for the 23 hours a day lock down. No human contact,  such as the ADX
in Colorado.

I like to think facts shouldn't have emotions attached....

The rest of your comment is on point. Recent studies into witness identifications have actually shown that they are wrong  so often that it is quite scary. I can't recall the percentage but it is huge the amount of times a witness will pick the wrong suspect. Then there are overzealous or corrupt or misguided cops who won't do a proper investigation and you are absolutely correct, you will find some of the dumbest people on juries.

This is why, though I favor the concept of the death penalty, I believe its actual use should be extremely limited. Heaven forbid we kill an innocent person.