True, I should’ve used the word “commuted.” I thought of that after I posted.
If the death penalty is the law.
If a person plans a murder and stalks the victim.
If said person is guilty beyond a doubt (video evidence, DNA…)
How can the death penalty not be the punishment?
For what it is worth Chapman and Sirhan are still living in prison
Tsarnaev is still being debated
Actually, only the sentence and any ‘disability’ goes away.
From an AI response to a search:
A pardon is an expression of the president’s forgiveness and ordinarily is granted in recognition of the applicant’s acceptance of responsibility for the crime and established good conduct for a significant period of time after conviction or completion of sentence. It does not signify innocence.Additional responses to the search:
What are the consequences of being pardoned?It does not signify innocence. It does, however, remove civil disabilities – e.g., restrictions on the right to vote, hold state or local office, or sit on a jury – imposed because of the conviction for which pardon is sought, and should lessen the stigma arising from the conviction.Feb 28, 2025
I learned this when I read a story about someone that, IIRC Biden pardoned. But the recipient would not accept the pardon because that required, either explicitly or implicitly I don’t remember which, that they admit they were guilty. And this person refused to admit they were guilty. I don’t remember if this person was still in prison or had already been released. But if already released then it would have allowed them to avoid any limitations for having been convicted.
Well the judge determines sentencing, no? I don’t think a world where we algorithmically sentence people to death would be great, even if their crime be heinous and a judge ultimately rule as such.
just shoot him in the back and get it over with
1 Like
not saying algorithmically, but if it exists if not for him than who?
The better argument is, if it isn’t being applied why does it exist?
Should it be defined, mass murder, terrorism?
The algorithm now seems to be poor and black
I am saying, if the law exists, why not him? and if him, why not others.
and if not him, how many “less qualified” have died?
My personal opinion on the death penalty is it has to be extremely heinous, obvious, and with no hope for rehabilitation for the convicted. Very few people reach my personal threshold.
I think Anders deserves to be executed. Eichmann, Brunner and Mengele too.
I actually don’t think either Tsarnaev or Roof should be executed.
I think this is difficult to answer because there’s a distinction between my views on capital punishment and what the law says. I don’t think this is an obvious capital punishment case though, for example no children were harmed.
Not sure if rehab should be considered, or is even predictable. Not sure how Tsarnaev or Roof weren’t heinous. Maybe I put it to mass killings (however I decide to define mass).
and that is where the difficulty lies.
I really don’t believe Mangione deserves death, but our current government will use it to their advantage. The criteria can’t be so arbitrary.
Where I feel it should never me applied is a crime of passion (Menedez brothers), where it is clear the crime was against a specific person for a specific reason.
I feel Mangione ticks off the boxes for a lot of people, I feel we need to change the boxes
The trouble I think is that most Americans are happy to have capital punishment and they view it principally as a form of retribution, so I think it is serving its intended purpose here.
well, it has been proven it is not a deterrent.
many people don’t want to feed and cloth these people for the rest of their life, but again have no idea of the expense of appeals
Personally, I think I would rather be dead than prison for life
Yes I think deterrent might help people rationalize it but they mostly support it for retribution reasons.
I think I’d prefer life in prison, unless it was a bad prison…
There’s a bit of a paradox in thinking in terms of deterrence: I’m not sure I would enjoy living in the society you would have to have where the death penalty exists in such a way that it actually does have strong deterrent properties. 
unlimited drugs in prison. That’s how i’d choose to go. OD on a mountain of crack
Usually judges don’t determine a capital sentence. That is almost always left to a jury. While I think there are places where judges can impose the death penalty, most places don’t.
If there is a chance of rehabilitation would you still allow life without parole? I’ve always thought life without parole was a more evil than the dp.
The constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. By definition, the death penalty is cruel, and the number of safeguards we have to put in guarantees that it’s going to be unusual, so I think it should be prohibited.
2 Likes
Part of the determination of the sentence sought is prosecutorial discretion. Given the higher level of scrutiny a death penalty case incurs, not every crime eligible for the death penalty is prosecuted thusly.
I am not making any judgment on the applicability of the death penalty to particular crimes and circumstances.
And yet, the 5th amendment acknowledges capital crimes. Those would be crimes for which the punishment could be capital punishment or in other words, the death penalty. So are the 5th and 8th amendments contradictory?
I think it is a question of how things have changed. What was cruel and unusual then might not be so now, and vice versa. So does that mean the interpretation of the amendments change or not?
I’m not so sure that I can agree that a death sentence is a cruel punishment for a convicted murderer.
1 Like