I know it is probably a sensitive topic, but I'm interested in what other people think about this.

99.999% of the time I am against the DP. Too often people have been found innocent later and in more than one case mentally challenged.

But occasionally there is a simple case that yes I can say put them to death. But in those rare cases, no they do not get to choose anything.

If, hypothetically speaking, police officers perform a no-knock raid and you kill them to protect your home, family and self, should the DP apply? They performed an assault on you and your home, and got what they deserved.

"Thinking they were intruders", huh? But what if you perfectly knew they were the police and still killed them?

But you shouldn't go to prison. The cops invaded your home, and you righteously defended it from them. What were you supposed to do? Let them break in, smash your furniture, confiscate your belongings and/or haul you away? And then you're supposed to be the bad guy for defending yourself? Sorry, but if that's the Land of the Free, then it's free in name only.

Glad you mentioned the warrant, because now I can explain the contradiction of authority.

See, if the cops have a warrant, then they are permitted by the government to arrest you, confiscate your belongings or whatever they are ordered to do, yes? But the trick is this: does the government (politicians) have a right to do any of that? If a politician does that on their own, should that not be considered a break-in like if anybody else does it? Therefore, how can they order other people to do something which they have no right to do themselves?

You may say: "Well, the people voted for that politician, so they can do all that" But you agree that the average person doesn't have a right to do any of that. Therefore, no matter how many people vote for a politician, that politician has no right to do the same, either.

A wrongdoing is a wrongdoing, regardless of who commits it and how many people believe that it's not a wrongdoing. Because the government is not a supernatural entity. It's not somehow morally above us "citizens". It's word is not absolute, regardless of how many people believe it to be.
Belief in government is like belief in (abrahamic) god: a supernatural entity whose word is absolute and unquestionable and whose commandments we must all obey, otherwise we deserve to be in hell\prison for disobeying the Word of Go(d)vernment.

I think that if fought in a court of law, in a jury trial, it would be up to the jury to decide the verdict based on the arguments that both sides gave.

You misunderstood me, xander. The whole concept of authority, "law" etc is a myth. It's a religion like any other, and a very violent and coercive religion at that, the one you can't leave, like you can leave christianity or islam.

I see

It depends. In most cases, I don't think it should be used. I also think that all the special protections they put in place for death row inmates is over the top. Prisons all have inmates that would be glad to take care of serial killers and rapists and mass murderers, so yeah just put the defendant in with general population in a bad prison and it'll solve itself. If an execution does take place, all this mess about humane execution is bull as well. Forget giving them a peaceful go to sleep and never wake up scenario. Give them a bullet to the head in a firing squad, save tax dollars, and it's still more merciful than any of their victims got. But, as I said, I don't think it's necessary in most cases.

It'd be violence among the violent, I dont think it would change anything any more than adding a non-death row inmate that committed rape, they would get the same treatment. Prison is a violent place in general.

I gotcha.

A man in South Dakota was denied the right to choose which drug he wanted to be used in his execution. The story is here: https://www.keloland.com/news/crime/attorneys-argue-over-drug-planned-for-charles-rhiness-execution/

With that in mind, what do you guys think about the death penalty? I think that prison should be the only solution for people who would originally be sentenced to death, and the death penalty should be outlawed, except in cases of people who commit capital crimes (like murder) against government or police/military officials, who should be sentenced to death. If people are too dangerous to keep alive, they should be sentenced to death. But, what do you guys think?

1. Agree 99.999% of the time NO.
Aside note
2. Prison is not just about inflicting punitive damages and keeping dangerous ppl away from,others. There are some that are redeemable & can benefit from rehabilitation. I wish more ppl could see that.

I definitely support it in cases of broad daylight, non-defensive murder

It's weird when the family of the victim goes to watch the execution.

Nothing against it. But it should only be applied to hard offenses (murder, attempted murder, torture, highly-damaging assault (as in, the type which will ruin the victim's life by getting them crippled, paralyzed etc), child abuse, rape, trespassing if the trespasser is armed, robbery, kidnapping etc) and not to anything else like how Malasya(?) applies death penalty for pot possession.

Far too many incarcerated individuals have been proven innocent thanks to modern forensic tools previously not available, so I think the death penalty should be reserved for cases
where irrefutable forensic or surveillance evidence clearly supports a person's guilt in a murder case. Also, if they confess and provide supporting evidence to back their claims. The exception would be in the case of a felon suspected of murdering or kidnapping even further victims and law enforcement retains hope they can and will provide useful information as to the identity and/or location of those victims.

Brutal people with no respect for life do not deserve our pity, but unless an individual is caught red-handed in the act, it is our duty to our species to insure no one is executed without irrefutable evidence.

only when they are 100% proven guilty, IE video tape, dna etc and also incorrigible then yes..

I heard on a NPR report yrs ago that the state of Ca spent nearly 40 million $ over the years just on Charles Manson alone.

Because he was a high profile guy, he got tons of mail etc and they included the censoring of his correspondence etc.

Just think if they killed him in 1970 like they were supposed to do, what the state of Ca could do with that money , I am sure Nancy would have 8 mansions instead of 7 now ;)

And all of that money is taxpayer money (as governments are nothing but parasitic mobs). So, the american people were robbed for 40 milion dollars to keep a murderer alive and carefree. Think of that whatever you will.

i agree, 40 mill to keep a neo nazi scum alive, what a waste