The kids on the street See no real punishment for the convicted crime. Just That they're doing time.
Hang them in the street and see what their career choices might bring.

Where is Harison Ford???

Reread my first sentence. Innocents have gone through the process and have been executed by the state. Google it. And execution at the scene and time of the crime by witnesses or victims can be carried out in any number of ways. It's called self defense or lethal force in defense of someone else. I'd rather be tried by twelve than carried by six.
Imagine sitting on death row, you will die tomorrow for the rape and murder of a child. But you didn't do it. Everyone KNOWS you did it, after all, you were tried and convicted. Maybe your partner was offered life instead of death and told the jury the story the prosecutor made up for him. Happens all the time. Prosecutors don't care about justice, they just want a warm body convicted.
Your wife thinks you did it, your kids think you did it, your mother thinks you did it, everybody knows you did it!. But you didn't, and tomorrow you die for it.
A life sentence, for example, can be set right if further evidence proves innocence; a death sentence, obviously cannot.
And "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not etched in stone; it means different things to different people. A jury of 12 is not infallible.
Please note, I didn't say I believed ANYTHING except that self defense or lethal force in defense of another is justified. Perhaps I didn't make that clear. I just offered up something that I think needs some thought.

Yes, I realize that innocent people have been put to death and have been on death row. In fact, I took that position in college on a debate team and won. I have no problem with putting more safeguards in place to try and make sure that doesn't happen. That would be a separate discussion. My point is that people are on death row way too long these days and I don't consider that an appropriate safeguard. In laymen's terms, the way the appeals process works these days is that every objection that is overruled by the judge against the defense during the trial is a point of appeal. A savvy lawyer will file those appeals one at a time (ish) delaying the completion of the sentence. Obviously, this takes years and/or decades. There is no reason other than a delaying tactic that these appeals cannot be all looked and decided upon by a different judge at the same time. If a reversible error is found, then a retrial should be granted post haste. Sitting on the taxpayers dime for 20 years is not justified.

That's a fact. Life in prison is easier for the thugs today than it is in the streets. Free room and board, dental, healthcare, and just lay around all day. What changes for the worse?
Solitary confinement has been done away with (in NE anyway) because it makes criminals lonely.

O.K. Now I'll tell you what I believe and am extremely unlikely to change my mind about. Innocents being executed by the state under any circumstances is unacceptable to me. In Vietnam we called the their killings "collateral damage". I am totally opposed to the death penalty because its elimination would produce zero collateral damage. I am unwilling to accept any collateral damage .from state executions. How much are you willing to accept in order to kill the bad guys? And, no doubt, they deserve killing, but I would rather see them locked away until they die. a real honest life sentence.
Thanks for your response. I hope we.ve made some mental wheels turn.

There is a fundamental flaw in the logic that says "We should imprison people instead of executing them because they might be innocent."
The flaw is, that if they're innocent they don't deserve to be imprisoned either! An innocent person doesn't deserve death OR imprisonment, so how can anyone in good conscience want to imprison someone who might be innocent?? Why is it OK in your mind to cage up someone who might innocent?

Our gradual-scale sentencing system has resulted in the mentality that its OK to punish someone for a crime they might not have committed, as long as you punish them LESS. It's like a jury saying "well the crime you're accused of was really horrific, but we're not sure you actually did it. So instead of killing you we're just going to lock you up for the rest of your life instead."
Where's the justice in that??

There's a phrase used in the early documents of our criminal code: "guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.'

In my opinion, if a person is not found guilty beyond a shadow of doubt, they should walk out the door free and clear. If they are found guilty, they should receive the full punishment. Punishing people a little bit for little crimes and maybe crimes is the reason we keep building more prisons.


I believe there should be only 2 criminal punishments: execution and restitution. That's what I posted about a few weeks ago here: https://trapperman.com/forum/ubbthr...ice-a-concept-for-discussion#Post6981883

Firing Squads need to make a comeback