I think people who believe that murderers should be kept alive at tax payer expense should have to pay for the entire cost by themselves. Those of us who believe they should be killed ought not be forced to pay for a policy with which we vehemently disagree.
4. We should be more proactive with these people rather than reactive as another poster suggested.
And what does that mean? Since we don't know who will commit a crime before the fact, it appears you are suggesting the creation of a "Department of Pre-Crime" as was demonstrated in the movie "Minority Report." I suggest that killing murderers will prevent future crime without the need to predict who will commit it before the fact.
4. It's been proven that many people who are violent have a chemical defect or portions of their brain missing that cause these outburst which normal people do not have. I suspect 50-60 years from now we will be able to treat people with mental illness before they go off..maybe even in the womb through medication.
I don't care. It concerns me not at all WHY they did it. I am only interested in the fact that they have demonstrated themselves to be a threat to others around them. We shoot rabid dogs, and we do not think it an injustice because the dog didn't mean to be rabid.
Lettuce be real, the death penalty is not a deterrent. Murders only have remorse and are afraid of the death penalty only after they get caught.
Nonsense. The death penalty is not a very strong deterrent the way *WE* have been implementing it. Given that it takes a decade to execute someone, whatever deterrence effect it would have on criminally minded people is severely diluted. The way it used to be implemented, it was a very good deterrent. Look at murder statistics from prior to the Courts becoming liberal.
