that is not how the law works. Part of "due process" is the appeals process. Denying it to people based on your emotions is not okay.
Not sure about that. Otherwise the Supreme Court would weigh in on every murder charge because all convicted murderers would want to appeal. There should be trial by a jury; juries aren't curropt with power.
My tax cuts matter to me more than the life of a starving kid in America that we know is innocent; I'm fiscally conservative.
yes we know you are a giant, gaping asshole. I'm not sure why you like repeating it so much.
I'm just being a fiscal conservative; advocating for cutting government spending and accepting the logical consequences of that; children starve. You are calling all fiscal conservatives giant assholes by calling me one based on this quote (which I'm not against you doing that if you are upfront with the belief that all fiscal conservatives are assholes).
why are people willing to spend $25.2 billion/year on convicted murderers and r***sts when 96% of them actually did one of the worst crimes in our legal system?
Your question is stupid. The alternative would be letting them go, or executing a bunch of potentially innocent people. Both are unacceptable.
If all murderers and ra**sts were killed, then about 600 falsely convicted people would get killed and $25.2 billion would be saved (about $42 million per one person's life for a year). If you think one innocent person's life for a year is worth more than $42 million, then you should donate all your excess money to help starving children survive for a year, because it would be cheaper.
it also means you don't give a shit about the constitution or people's rights apparently.
If I didn't care about the rights of the falsely accused at all, then I would put them in jail, not give them any food, and let them starve to death. I believe the death penalty in a way designed to reduce pain balances the rights of the potentially falsely accused with the goal of saving money (and yes; I value my money more than any stranger's life; if you think this is cruel, then donate all your excess funds to help starving child strangers). Just don't be a hypocrite and demand I and society (aka strangers) sacrifice money to help the poor when you are unwilling to sacrifice lesser amounts of money.
I didn't say human life was priceless. I said that compensation cannot be given.
What's the difference between these 2 claims?
If you accidentally imprison the wrong person, you can't give them their years back, but you can give them a money amount in compensation for what they have lost. If you've killed them, there is no compensation possible.
Compensation has to be funded by the taxpayer and it's not my fault someone faced a false accusation, so the taxpayer should not give prisoners money for their suffering. This is the consequence of fiscal conservatism and cutting government spending (unless you propose some other idea to cut government spending).
this is exactly my point, and exactly why your point was stupid. You don't want to give teachers more money.
I believe the minimum teacher salary should be $80K/year. But every left wing state wants to get to that and they haven't. A government that complains that teachers aren't getting paid enough money while blowing money on murderers is a government that makes no sense.
it's something most modern nations do. 56% of countries in the world have banned the death penalty. only 27% of countries use it. So the US is in good company with countries like Saudi arabia, Afghanistan and Iran.
And the EU is in good company with Kenya, Cameroon, and South Africa.
If a Nazi says, "The Sky is Blue", then they are correct on that quote.
If Iran says, "Murderers should get killed", then the majority of the US population believes they are correct on that quote.
What religion backs a policy is irrelevant unless you are Islamophobic.
there are almost no "western" nations that have the death penalty. Almost all have banned it.
No need on the US copying the EU. America is a better place to live than the EU.
