FBI increases reward for Naugatuck child murdererSubmitted by EditBayFive t3_z87s40 in Connecticut
billybobwillyt t1_iyb6lqc wrote
Reply to comment by Lopsided_Cupcake_988 in FBI increases reward for Naugatuck child murderer by EditBayFive
If there's even a chance an innocent person could be executed, there shouldn't be a death penalty. And if the number of people getting exonerated after years on death row isn't enough for you, try the people that have been exonerated after execution. It's even cheaper to just put them away forever, anyway.
Lopsided_Cupcake_988 t1_iyb7vpg wrote
So if you keep them in prison aren’t they guilty? Or wouldn’t that highlight a flaw in the justice system that needs to be fixed so only guilty people are in prison because our rights say you are innocent until proven guilty. And also why would execution be more expensive than keeping them housing and feeding them for the rest of their life when an execution would put an end to that? It shows that there is a major problem with how executions are done.
billybobwillyt t1_iyb9csr wrote
Many innocent people have spent decades in prison. There are many, many flaws in our justice system. Execution is expensive, but where the money really flows is appeals, legal reviews, years on death row, etc. It's well established that an inmate on death row (on average) costs us far more than someone serving life in prison. The solution (which is really not a solution) would be to immediately execute anyone convicted and condemned to death. That would reduce costs and also drive the number of innocent people murdered by the state up. Not a great option.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/urls_cited/ot2016/16-5247/16-5247-2.pdf
https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/which-is-cheaper-execution-or-life-in-prison-without-parole-31614
Lopsided_Cupcake_988 t1_iybbfqa wrote
What you’re saying is there is no way to execute guilty people with out executing innocent people? Like only having it for mass shooters and people that are open about it and admit guilt isn’t possible or able to be done cheaper than letting them live
locke0479 t1_iybgu41 wrote
No, because as soon as you allow it for some people, it’s going to be allowed for others. Who gets to determine when someone is “100% guilty”? Lots of people that “confessed” turned out to be coerced confessions that were disproven by other evidence, but most would claim a confession is 100% guilt and thus okay to execute.
Lopsided_Cupcake_988 t1_iybog28 wrote
What if there is definitive evidence like in the case of a mass shooter even after admitting and being throughly scrutinized? should we let them continue to live off of our tax money. Why does it have to be allowed for others if it’s allowed in these cases?
locke0479 t1_iybp712 wrote
Because that’s not how anything works. Why is “only in the very specific instance of a mass shooter who has been caught on the scene and has been verified via cameras to be the shooter” going to be the only possible execution crime? It wouldn’t. As soon as you allow one it’s “what about…” and “but also these guys…”. This conversation right now is about how it should come back for a guy who isn’t a mass shooter (and for the record, this guy is an enormous piece of human garbage and I hope he suffers horrifically the rest of his miserable life). So now we’ve gone from “ mass shooters with direct evidence” to “well, this guy really sucks though, amiright???”.
And come on with the taxpayer thing. Seriously be honest with yourself, no bullshit…do you think your taxes change even one penny if this guy spends the next 50 years in prison until he dies, or if he is executed or dies before? If he drops dead of a heart attack right now and never needs to be imprisoned, do you think you’re gonna get a rebate on your taxes? They’ll just spend that relatively small amount of money on something else. The prison already exists. The prison employees are hired and paid for regardless of whether there’s 8,000 prisoners in CT or 8,001. The “cost to house a prisoner” ignores that a lot of those costs are being paid no matter how many individuals are imprisoned.
Lopsided_Cupcake_988 t1_iybr40k wrote
Why is it have to be “what about or but also these guys” some people don’t deserve to continue getting a chance to enjoy this life. There’s many other scenarios too where if it’s verified that the punishment should be given to them. If this person goes to jail he’ll be given opportunity to eat sleep interact potentially have fun and enjoy himself etc
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments