8 year old boy murdered because his mom thought he was gay

[Thermodolia]

Because that's totalitarian is fuck.

And people have done SUCH a good job being responsible with their freedoms so far.

Id rather have a few irresponsible people abusing their freedoms then a totalitarian state

[Telconi]

Because that's totalitarian is fuck.

But it's not totalitarian to say who can and can't drive?

Then again, the US considers the ability to keep guns a divine right and anything else is totalitarian.

It isn't.

Sure do? Got a point you'd like to share?

[Genivaria]

Because that's totalitarian is fuck.

And people have done SUCH a good job being responsible with their freedoms so far.

.....yeah?
I don't see people having mass orgies of blood and death in the streets like so authoritarians assumed would happen.

[Eisen Wolf Reich]

Here's how I see it. You have four options.

Option A) You attempt reform and fail. Person is not a functional member of society and resources are wasted to attempt reformation.

Option B) You attempt reform and succeed. Person is not a functional member of society because they are crippled by the knowledge of what terrible things they did. Resources are wasted on an emotionally crippled member of society. And this person now lives a life of internal torture.

Option C) You simply put them in a cement box forever, they never are reformed, and they live as a monster in a zoo. Resources are wasted feeding and housing them.

Option D) Execution. You simply end their life, minimal resources are used. No further agon is inflicted on anyone.

I will point out that Option D costs more than Option C.

Not if you put a bullet in their skull as soon as they walk out of the court room.

[Thermodolia]

I will point out that Option D costs more than Option C.

Not if you put a bullet in their skull as soon as they walk out of the court room.

I do like how our system has the ability to appeal any judicial decision.

[Herador]

Man, this is kind of fucking me up a whole lot.

This poor kid, I just don't understand why a parent would do this to their child, to rob their own kid of their future because they might have been gay.

[USS Monitor]

And yet there is still an ongoing problem with states that have the death penalty using it irresponsibly.

In what way?

Black people are more likely to get executed for the same crimes. There have been a few botched executions because the states couldn't get the drugs they needed or fucked up administering them. One state was rushing executions to get them done before their supply of drugs expired. People sometimes get executed when their guilt or mental competence is in question.

Even if it's only one or two cases a year, that's still too many, given that the death penalty is not needed. It's not a necessary evil like police being allowed to use force to subdue suspects, or the need for a criminal justice system in general. It's unnecessary.

[Valgora]

I will point out that Option D costs more than Option C.

Not if you put a bullet in their skull as soon as they walk out of the court room.

Even that will cost money. Although it would be cheaper than lethal injection.

As far as I know, the cost is really high due to all the legal shit and the time required for a capital case and etc.

[Eisen Wolf Reich]

Not if you put a bullet in their skull as soon as they walk out of the court room.

I do like how our system has the ability to appeal any judicial decision.

If they are convicted beyond a shadow of a doubt (which is the only reason the death penalty should be given), then they should just be shot, why waste money to house and feed them when you can just put a 30 cent bullet in their skull and cremate their body?

[Eisen Wolf Reich]

Not if you put a bullet in their skull as soon as they walk out of the court room.

Even that will cost money. Although it would be cheaper than lethal injection.

As far as I know, the cost is really high due to all the legal shit and the time required for a capital case and etc.

It would be much cheaper. Its less than 30 cents for a bullet.

[Trumptonium]

In what way?

Black people are more likely to get executed for the same crimes.

How long ago was this?

There have been a few botched executions because the states couldn't get the drugs they needed or fucked up administering them.

Not a problem with the concept itself, but a problem with it's administering, more than likely to be blamed on financial cuts.

One state was rushing executions to get them done before their supply of drugs expired.

I don't see how that's an irresponsible use of the death penalty.

People sometimes get executed when their 1- guilt or 2- mental competence is in question.

1 - When was this? Besides, there's room for improvement. I have no doubt that in the past it has been used wrongfully, but one bad apple should not be blamed on all the other apples, right?
2 - Mental sanity should not be a consideration in dealing with the death penalty. There's no need to keep a person alive for the same crime because they are not a functioning human being. To the contrary it should be more likely for them to receive the death penalty, but that's beyond the point.

given that the death penalty is not needed.

Well, when you put it that way, nothing is.

[Valgora]

Even that will cost money. Although it would be cheaper than lethal injection.

As far as I know, the cost is really high due to all the legal shit and the time required for a capital case and etc.

It would be much cheaper. Its less than 30 cents for a bullet.

I don't know if it would be cheaper than Option C.

I don't know how much the drugs cost for lethal injection, I just remember that the major (or only) supplier of the chemicals has decided not to sell it to the states to execute people with it.

[Thermodolia]

I do like how our system has the ability to appeal any judicial decision.

If they are convicted beyond a shadow of a doubt (which is the only reason the death penalty should be given), then they should just be shot, why waste money to house and feed them when you can just put a 30 cent bullet in their skull and cremate their body?

No. They should be allowed to appeal their sentence.

[Rusozak]

I do like how our system has the ability to appeal any judicial decision.

If they are convicted beyond a shadow of a doubt (which is the only reason the death penalty should be given), then they should just be shot, why waste money to house and feed them when you can just put a 30 cent bullet in their skull and cremate their body?

Pretty much this.

Death penalty should be reserved for those cases. There's no ounce of doubt Dylann Roof massacred people in a church, so there should be no issue in putting him to death.

[Eisen Wolf Reich]

If they are convicted beyond a shadow of a doubt (which is the only reason the death penalty should be given), then they should just be shot, why waste money to house and feed them when you can just put a 30 cent bullet in their skull and cremate their body?

No. They should be allowed to appeal their sentence.

IF they defiantly guilt of such a atrocity, why should we let them appeal their sentence?

[Trumptonium]

It would be much cheaper. Its less than 30 cents for a bullet.

I don't know if it would be cheaper than Option C.

I don't know how much the drugs cost for lethal injection, I just remember that the major (or only) supplier of the chemicals has decided not to sell it to the states to execute people with it.

Not all executions are administered with chemicals - not even a majority. Shocks are much cheaper, and firing squads are obviously far more cheaper.

[Methodological Individualism]

If they are convicted beyond a shadow of a doubt (which is the only reason the death penalty should be given)...

Once omniscience becomes a thing, all sorts of nonsense might become a good idea. In the mean time, though...

[Eisen Wolf Reich]

I don't know if it would be cheaper than Option C.

I don't know how much the drugs cost for lethal injection, I just remember that the major (or only) supplier of the chemicals has decided not to sell it to the states to execute people with it.

Not all executions are administered with chemicals - not even a majority. Shocks are much cheaper, and firing squads are obviously far more cheaper.

exactly, you could have 1 man shoot the guy in the head with a 9mm pistol, only cost you 30 cents.

[USS Monitor]

How?

Are they going to be raising children while they're in prison if we don't execute them? Do you have statistical evidence showing that the death penalty is an effective deterrent?

The question you posed was whether the death penalty will be more effective in protecting other children [presumably from this offender]

The logical conclusion is that their elimination is quite obviously going to be more effective than keeping them imprisoned, in the rare case of them being broken out or administratively let out by mistake, or them being let out in the long term to re-offend if the failed to be rehabilitated.

No, the answer to that is there is no significant difference because death or life without parole both reduce the risk to a level that is negligible. The death penalty actually DOESN'T reduce the risk of escape to zero because they could theoretically escape before their execution.

[Thermodolia]

No. They should be allowed to appeal their sentence.

IF they defiantly guilt of such a atrocity, why should we let them appeal their sentence?

Because that's how the system works. Everyone gets the right to appeal their sentences, even those who we all know are 99.99% guilty.

Should they have an unlimited amount of appeals? No. Should there be a time limit on the ability to appeal? Yes.

[Trumptonium]

If they are convicted beyond a shadow of a doubt (which is the only reason the death penalty should be given), then they should just be shot, why waste money to house and feed them when you can just put a 30 cent bullet in their skull and cremate their body?

No. They should be allowed to appeal their sentence.

How many times?

[Eisen Wolf Reich]

If they are convicted beyond a shadow of a doubt (which is the only reason the death penalty should be given)...

Once omniscience becomes a thing, all sorts of nonsense might become a good idea. In the mean time, though...

Beyond a shadow of a doubt I show juries are supposed to convict now lol. You're argument issssss?

[Methodological Individualism]

IF they [definitely] guilt of such a atrocity, why should we let them appeal their sentence?

Because certainty after the fact is impossible. Thus appeals, review, etc.

[Vassenor]

Once omniscience becomes a thing, all sorts of nonsense might become a good idea. In the mean time, though...

Beyond a shadow of a doubt I show juries are supposed to convict now lol. You're argument issssss?

No, it's beyond reasonable doubt. Not quite the same thing.

[Risottia]

No. They should be allowed to appeal their sentence.

IF they defiantly guilt of such a atrocity, why should we let them appeal their sentence?

Because there's always the possibility of a judiciary error during the first trial. Having an appeal reduces that possibility.