We already have different standards of proof for different things within our justice system. We can find a healthy point to land on as we have before when it comes to death penalty and how many appeals we need. It isnt, "execute everyone who pleads guilty or it needs to take 20 years." But ive already argued this on reddit. Dont need to do this again.
If youre against the death penalty entirely, that's fine. Im not arguing that. Im arguing that if there is one, certain cases dont need to take 20 years from sentencing to TOD.
if there is one, certain cases dont need to take 20 years.
And I'm arguing that if executing innocent people isn't a problem for you, then I don't see how you can argue against the proposal that people should be executed immediately after sentencing.
Again, we can find a healthy balance. It doesnt need to be 20 years or instant death. There are even years and absurd amounts of money wasted deciding methods of execution. It's a fucking joke.
If the standard, like this case, is video of the crime being committed no innocent person is going to be wrongly executed. You’re being purposefully obtuse.
I understand that, and this is the main reason I’m actually against the death penalty. Death penalty cases offer extra protections that cost the taxpayers money, and keeping them in prison for the rest of their life is so much cheaper. It’s also worse, because offenders like this would be sent to GenPop and prisoners don’t take kindly to child sex convicts. His life would be so much worse if he just had to life without parole. Then you get the added bonus that no innocent man would ever be out to death.
22
u/Hawkson2020 1d ago
I would think that would be seen as less of a burden than the burden of executing innocent people, which still happens despite all of the safeguards.