|
|
Post by code on Jul 5, 2022 0:09:28 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by code on Jul 5, 2022 0:12:59 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by code on Jul 5, 2022 0:15:44 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by code on Jul 5, 2022 0:17:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Sigurdur on Jul 5, 2022 0:20:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by code on Jul 5, 2022 0:27:36 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on Jul 6, 2022 13:06:39 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Sigurdur on Jul 6, 2022 13:18:19 GMT
Illinois has red flag laws.
The kid has serious mental problems.
They didn't work.
|
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on Jul 6, 2022 13:57:10 GMT
Illinois has red flag laws. The kid has serious mental problems. They didn't work. No word on prescription/recreational drugs yet…. Outlaw the inanimate objects, criminalize the law abiding citizens and coddle the lawless and insane. Swift and certain capital punishment needs a comeback. |
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jul 6, 2022 19:52:50 GMT
Illinois has red flag laws. The kid has serious mental problems. They didn't work. No word on prescription/recreational drugs yet…. Outlaw the inanimate objects, criminalize the law abiding citizens and coddle the lawless and insane. Swift and certain capital punishment needs a comeback. Another option would be to free (to treatment programs) a portion of that portion of prisoners incarcerated for non-violent drug offenses ... and load them up with the truely dangerous criminals. Work camps again?
|
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on Jul 7, 2022 12:18:17 GMT
Illinois has red flag laws. The kid has serious mental problems. They didn't work. No word on prescription/recreational drugs yet…. Outlaw the inanimate objects, criminalize the law abiding citizens and coddle the lawless and insane. Swift and certain capital punishment needs a comeback.
"There are a handful of things that become apparent about deterrence, but here’s a pretty basic idea: Swiftness and certainty are more important than severity. Of course, if punishment must be proportional for justice to truly be just, then execution is warranted in cases of mass murder, the perpetrators of which cannot die enough deaths to make up for the many they stole."
|
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jul 7, 2022 14:30:47 GMT
Used to be that the West didn't sweat the small stuff. Hang 'em and forget 'em. The examples and lessons were passed along. Parents brought their children. The public was saved the expense.
|
|
steve
Level 2 Rank
Posts: 77
|
Post by steve on Jul 7, 2022 17:37:35 GMT
I took Intro to Psychology as a senior in college. Did not much care for the professor. But he said one thing that made a lot of sense. Something like the farther removed consequences for bad decisions are, the less they will deter bad decisions. That was when i changed my opinion on the death penalty. I am not apposed to it, but I am opposed to carrying it out 20 years after the crime. I don't have a time limit in mind, but I think even 10 years is too long. I also think the burden of proof needs to be higher than "beyond a shadow of a doubt" for capital punishment. Having said that, it should not be easy for government at any level to sentence somebody to death.
|
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on Jul 7, 2022 18:18:10 GMT
Those are good points Steve. There are certainly recent incidents that come to mind that could comply with those requirements. I think 10 years is far too long for victims’ families to see just retribution though. “Swift” can be somewhat relative but not that long IMHO. The public should not see a penalty carried out for a crime they don’t recall.
|
|
|
|
Post by gridley on Jul 8, 2022 11:40:15 GMT
I'm a fan of the "2nd strike" criteria for capital punishment.
Problem: the justice system isn't perfect. People are convicted of serious crimes they didn't commit. (Note, on the topic of this discussion, that the recognition of this fact is a large part of the reason for the prolonged appeals process.)
Proposed: the death penalty will be applied on the SECOND conviction for a capital crime (murder, kidnapping, etc.). The two crimes must be tried separately, and evidence used against the accused in one trial may not be introduced in the other. There would still be the usual lesser punishments available (prison time, etc.) and appeals process for those convicted of only a single capital crime.
Rationale: if someone is independently convicted of two separate crimes, using separate evidence, the odds that they committed neither of them are vanishingly small. The odds are in fact very high that they committed both crimes.
This proposal has been around long enough that it pre-dates the modern media glorification of mass shooters, but I feel that the "mass shooting" problem is not caused by a lack of deterrence but rather by the fact that we make it trivially easy for someone who thinks they have nothing to live for to get their "five seconds of fame." "Gun free zone" is spelled "gathering of helpless victims".
|
|
