Abolish the Federal Death Penalty

[PAF]

08/13/2019

6914


After almost twenty years without an execution, the Federal penal system has decided to proceed with a number of executions. NPR reported last month (https://www.npr.org/2019/07/25/745223284/federal-government-to-resume-capital-punishment-after-nearly-20-year-hiatus):


U.S. Attorney General William Barr has instructed the Federal Bureau of Prisons to change the federal execution protocol to include capital punishment, the Justice Department said.

Barr also asked the prisons bureau to schedule the executions of five inmates who have been found guilty of murder. According to the DOJ, the victims in each case included children and the elderly. In some of the cases, the convicted murderers also tortured and raped their victims.



Is the Death Penalty Ever Warranted?


I am not an anti-death-penalty absolutist. That is, in some cases where the testimony and physical evidence is overwhelming — and the crimes are particularly heinous — the death penalty could be warranted, at least in theory.

But given police corruption, incompetent prosecutors, and an over-reliance on circumstantial evidence in court, a great many death-penalty cases are built on a pretty shaky foundation. Moreover, it is extremely likely that innocent people have been executed (https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence/executed-but-possibly-innocent) in the United States whether through errors, or through outright fraud on the part of government officials.

In other words, the death penalty is serious business, and given that government bureaucrats can't even run the DMV or the VA competently, there's no reason to assume their criminal-justice skills are anything deserving of our unconditional trust.

Nevertheless, it is conceivable that the death penalty could be justly applied in some cases.


There's No Need for a Federal Death Penalty


When examining the federal death penalty, however, it quickly becomes apparent that it is simply unnecessary — and should be completely abolished.


State laws already address the need to prosecute violent criminals. Murder, rape, assault, and other violent crimes are already illegal in every state of the Union. If Smith murders Wilson in, say, Pennsylvania, Smith can be tried for murder under Pennsylvania law. This is true even if Smith employs bombs, airplanes, or other tools associated with international terrorism.

There is no need for an extra layer of federal criminal justice. For example, Timothy McVeigh, who was convicted of the Oklahoma City bombing, was certainly eligible to be tried for murder under Oklahoma law. Those who perpetrated 9/11 were certainly eligible to be tried for murder under New York and Virginia laws. But McVeigh was tried for the federal crime of killing a federal agent. Zacarias Moussaoui (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zacarias_Moussaoui) was prosecuted in federal court for his role in the 9/11 attacks, specifically "conspiracy to murder United States employees," among other crimes.

Although these sorts of killings are certainly illegal in the states where they occur, the federal government insists on having prerogatives to prosecute defendants under federal law also. This is often done to add an additional layer of possible prosecution, and so that defendants can be prosecuted more than once for the same crime. This is a violation of the Bill or Rights, of course (as explained by Justice Neil Gorsuch) (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/06/rbg-ruth-bader-ginsburg-neil-gorsuch-double-jeopardy-supreme-court-gamble.html) but federal courts have looked the other way on this loophole for years.

Besides, cases of terrorism or international crime rings are hardly what's behind most capital cases in federal court. We're not talking about Russian crime bosses or domestic supervillains. On the contrary, nearly all defendants in capital cases in federal court are brought to trial for run-of-the-mill crimes involving drug deals, bank robberies, or other acts that are already violations of state criminal statutes.

Moreover, in some cases, federal prosecutors deliberately go against the wishes of local prosecutors.

Lezmond Mitchell, for example, is a Navajo Indian who was convicted of murdering a Navajo woman and her granddaughter on Navajo land. He is now awaiting execution in a federal prison.

But note the murders took place on Navajo land, and Navajo law does not allow the death penalty. Nonetheless, the federal government inserted itself into the case (https://theintercept.com/2019/07/29/death-penalty-federal-executions/). According to an analysis by The Intercept:



the U.S. government had forced itself onto the case. For one, because the murder alone was not punishable by death under tribal law, seeking the death penalty was “possible only by virtue of the fact that Mitchell and a fellow Navajo, aged 16, stole a car in connection with the murders they committed,” [ Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote in a legal dissent on the case.] The Anti Car Theft Act of 1992 had made carjacking a federal crime — and the 1994 crime bill had made carjacking resulting in death a crime punishable by death. “In the absence of the carjacking, Mitchell would not have been eligible for the death penalty.”

“Equally important,” Reinhardt went on, “none of the people closely connected to the case wanted Mitchell to be subjected to the death penalty: not the victims’ family, not the Navajo Nation — of which the victims and perpetrators were all members and on whose land the crime occurred — and not the United States attorney whose job it was to prosecute Mitchell.”



No one directly involved with the case who lived within 500 miles of the reservation demanded the death penalty. But then-US Attorney General John Ashcroft intervened to ensure the death penalty was on the table.


Expanding Federal Powers


The fact that a car theft had allowed the federal government to demand jurisdiction in the Mitchell case reflects a longtime strategy used by federal lawmakers to expand federal jurisdiction over time. By gradually adding more and more federal criminal offenses to the statute books, federal policymakers have made it possible for the federal government to insinuate iselfs into an ever growing number of crminal investigations.

The US Constitution, meanwhile, only mentions three federal crimes: treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. Only piracy involves crimes that necessarily occur beyond the jurisdiction of state laws against violent crime. Counterfeiting, in contrast, is merely a type of fraud. And fraud is already illegal in every state. Treason is only a real problem if it involves violent acts against others — in which case it is already covered by state laws against violent crime.

All other federal crimes beyond these three are based on tortured legal reasoning designed to do an end run around the Tenth Amendment. They're justified under the "necessary and proper" clause or the commerce clause. They are redundant and largely function to greatly expand federal intervention into each and every American community. Beyond piracy, the entire federal apparatus for criminal prosecutions ought to be abolished. But the federal death penalty is a good place to start.


https://mises.org/wire/abolish-federal-death-penalty

[Anti Globalist]

I have mixed feelings when it comes to the death penalty. On one hand, I don't trust the government to execute the right people. On the other hand, convicted pedophiles who we know without a shadow of a doubt are pedophiles should be put to death.

[PAF]

I have mixed feelings when it comes to the death penalty. On one hand, I don't trust the government to execute the right people. On the other hand, convicted pedophiles who we know without a shadow of a doubt are pedophiles should be put to death.


Per the article, do you believe the State or the Fed should be in that area?

[Stratovarious]

Per the article, do you believe the State or the Fed should be in that area?
What do you believe?

[PAF]

What do you believe?

Though I do not support the death penalty, worse case scenario it should be up to the States - NOT the FED.

And you?

[PAF]

Though I do not support the death penalty, worse case scenario it should be up to the States - NOT the FED.

And you?

LOL I just got -Rep and a facepalm from Stratovarious

So the FED should handle it, not the States. Huh. Am I on the right forum?

[Stratovarious]

LOL I just got -Rep and a facepalm from @Stratovarious (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=61147)

So the FED should handle it, not the States. Huh. Am I on the right forum?
FO, Go cut holes in fences, and why again is it that you keep your doors locked /

You negd me , you did it before , and you keep doing it, I never neg anyone first , you do it constantly, fo.

[Swordsmyth]

The death penalty is required for some crimes.

The debate should be about the standard of proof required.

[Swordsmyth]

Though I do not support the death penalty, worse case scenario it should be up to the States - NOT the FED.

And you?
Treason is a federal crime that requires the death penalty.

[Zippyjuan]

The death penalty has not been shown to be an effective deterrent to crime. And if you make a mistake, you cannot correct killing somebody. Many people on Death Row have later been exonerated.

"Thou shalt not kill".

[Swordsmyth]

The death penalty has not been shown to be an effective deterrent to crime. And if you make a mistake, you cannot correct killing somebody. Many people on Death Row have later been exonerated.
That's why the standard of proof needs to be changed.


"Thou shalt not kill".
The correct translation is "Thou shalt not murder", there is also a specific command to kill murderers.

[Zippyjuan]

The correct translation is "Thou shalt not murder", there is also a specific command to kill murderers.

There is also a rule that kids who misbehave should be stoned. Do people still follow that one? Or "let he who is without sin cast the first stone"?


That's why the standard of proof needs to be changed.


How would you change the standard of proof?

[Swordsmyth]

There is also a rule that kids who misbehave should be stoned. Do people still follow that one? Or "let he who is without sin cast the first stone"?
Not everything Moses said came from GOD, Christ made that clear about divorce.
GOD gave the command to kill murderers to Noah.




How would you change the standard of proof?
Proof must be absolute and unquestionable.

[Zippyjuan]

Not everything Moses said came from GOD, Christ made that clear about divorce.
GOD gave the command to kill murderers to Noah.

Proof must be absolute and unquestionable.

Since there is no such thing, I guess no death penalty.

Did the 10 Commandments come from God? Or were those just suggestions Moses came up with? Link to that Noah thing?

"Vengence is mine sayeth the Lord".

"Put your sword back in its place- for those who live by the sword shall die by the sword."

"Turn the other cheek".

(noting that the Ten Commandments were written after Noah and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" was by Jesus- way after both of them).

"Turn the other cheek" was to replace "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth".

[oyarde]

How many people a yr are the feds killing ?

[Swordsmyth]

Since there is no such thing, I guess no death penalty.
Yes there is.


Did the 10 Commandments come from God? Or were those just suggestions Moses came up with?
Those were from GOD


Link to that Noah thing?
It's in Genesis, read the bible for yourself.


"Vengence is mine sayeth the Lord".
Justice isn't vengeance.


"Put your sword back in its place- for those who live by the sword shall die by the sword."
Administering justice isn't living by the sword and he also told them to get swords.


"Turn the other cheek".
When slapped, that's not the same as murder.

[Zippyjuan]

Those were from GOD

So killing is a sin. If the government kills, do they commit a sin? Would that violate the Ten Commandments? The Old Testament was mostly about vengence while the New Testament is more about forgiveness.

[Zippyjuan]

But let's skip arguing about the Bible. What should the basis be for selecting the punishment for a crime? To make the victim as whole as possible? That is the goal of say a thief or somebody damages something- pay for the damage to the person harmed. You stole my car, give me money to buy a new one. If a person is dead, does killing somebody else make the person or his/ her family whole again? No. That is not possible. Dead is dead and can't be fixed. Is the purpose to prevent the person from committing the crime again? Killing them certainly does that. They can't do anything after that. But so does locking them up for the rest of their lives. Is it to act as a deterrent to others who may consider similar activities? There is little evidence suggesting that the death penalty deters serious crime. So what is the real purpose of the death penalty?

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-does-death-penalty-deter-crime-20170321-story.html


Does murder rate go up without the death penalty?

<snip>

"What we see is that as murder rates go up in the United States, they go up in both states that have the death penalty and states that don't," he said. "And when they drop, the nationwide trends are also about the same. The anecdotal evidence is that there is no relationship."

[Swordsmyth]

But let's skip arguing about the Bible. What should the basis be for selecting the punishment for a crime? To make the victim as whole as possible? That is the goal of say a thief or somebody damages something- pay for the damage to the person harmed. You stole my car, give me money to buy a new one. If a person is dead, does killing somebody else make the person or his/ her family whole again? No. That is not possible. Dead is dead and can't be fixed. Is the purpose to prevent the person from committing the crime again? Killing them certainly does that. They can't do anything after that. But so does locking them up for the rest of their lives. Is it to act as a deterrent to others who may consider similar activities? There is little evidence suggesting that the death penalty deters serious crime. So what is the real purpose of the death penalty?
Restitution and deterrence.
For severe enough crimes the purpose should be to cull them from the populace without costing the decent citizens the price of supporting them for life if there is no doubt.

[Swordsmyth]

So killing is a sin. If the government kills, do they commit a sin? Would that violate the Ten Commandments? The Old Testament was mostly about vengence while the New Testament is more about forgiveness.
The correct translation is "Thou shalt not MURDER", killing murderers in obedience to GOD is not murder.

[Zippyjuan]

Restitution and deterrence.
For severe enough crimes the purpose should be to cull them from the populace without costing the decent citizens the price of supporting them for life if there is no doubt.

How is killing somebody restitution? How does that compensate the victim's family? It doesn't. Studies show no difference in murder rate trends in states with or without the death penalty so deterrence is not a factor. In fact, death penalty state have slightly higher murder rates.

https://dpic.imgix.net/murderratesdpvsnodp-2016.png?auto=format&crop=focalpoint&domain=dpic.imgix.net&fit=crop&fp-x=0.5&fp-y=0.5&h=421&ixlib=php-2.3.0&q=82&usm=50&w=1024&

[Swordsmyth]

How is killing somebody restitution? How does that compensate the victim's family? It doesn't. Studies show no difference in murder rate trends in states with or without the death penalty so deterrence is not a factor.
Read the rest of what I wrote, that wasn't the only purpose I gave.

Society must be protected and it shouldn't have to pay to feed and house murderers when there is no doubt.

[Zippyjuan]

Read the rest of what I wrote, that wasn't the only purpose I gave.

Society must be protected and it shouldn't have to pay to feed and house murderers when there is no doubt.

Lock them up or kill them- society is protected. So what about the second part? The financial costs to society?

With all the mandatory hearings and appeals to assure the "absolute proof" you said you wanted it actually cost more to issue the death penalty than to lock them up for life (so your financial argument is a failure as well).

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2014/05/01/considering-the-death-penalty-your-tax-dollars-at-work/#1d1c6e8f664b


Considering The Death Penalty: Your Tax Dollars At Work

<snip>

"It's 10 times more expensive to kill them than to keep them alive,"says Donald McCartin, known as The Hanging Judge of Orange County. McCartin knows a little bit about executions: he has sent nine men to death row.

McCartin isn't talking about the comparisons between the cost of the actual execution and the cost of keeping an inmate in prison: those aren't apples to apples comparisons.

It's true that the actual execution costs taxpayers fairly little: while most states remain mum on the cost of lethal injections because of privacy concerns from pharmaceutical companies, it's estimated that the drugs run about $100 (the Texas Department of Criminal Justice put the cost of their drug cocktails at $83 in 2011). However, the outside costs associated with the death penalty are disproportionately higher.

To begin with, capital cases (those where the death penalty is a potential punishment) are more expensive and take much more time to resolve than non-capital cases. According to a study by the Kansas Judicial Council (downloads as a pdf), defending a death penalty case costs about four times as much as defending a case where the death penalty is not considered. In terms of costs, a report of the Washington State Bar Association found that death penalty cases are estimated to generate roughly $470,000 in additional costs to the prosecution and defense versus a similar case without the death penalty; that doesn't take into account the cost of court personnel. Even when a trial wasn't necessary (because of a guilty plea), those cases where the death penalty was sought still cost about twice as much as those where death was not sought. Citing Richard C. Dieter of the non-partisan Death Penalty Information Center, Fox News has reported that studies have "uniformly and conservatively shown that a death-penalty trial costs $1 million more than one in which prosecutors seek life without parole."

And let's not forget about appeals: in Idaho, the State Appellate Public Defenders office spent about 44 times more time on a typical death penalty appeal than on a life sentence appeal (downloads as a pdf): almost 8,000 hours per capital defendant compared to about 180 hours per non-death penalty defendant. New York state projected that the death penalty costs the state $1.8 million per case just through trial and initial appeal.

It costs more to house death penalty prisoners, as well. In Kansas, housing prisoners on death row costs more than twice as much per year ($49,380) as for prisoners in the general population ($24,690). In California, incarceration costs for death penalty prisoners totaled more than $1 billion from 1978 to 2011 (total costs outside of incarceration were another $3 billion). By the numbers, the annual cost of the death penalty in the state of California is $137 million compared to the cost of lifetime incarceration of $11.5 million.

[Swordsmyth]

Lock them up or kill them- society is protected. So what about the second part? The financial costs to society?

With all the mandatory hearings and appeals to assure the "absolute proof" you said you wanted it actually cost more to issue the death penalty than to lock them up for life (so your financial argument is a failure as well).

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2014/05/01/considering-the-death-penalty-your-tax-dollars-at-work/#1d1c6e8f664b
No doubt doesn't necessarily have to cost money just because our current system is fouled up.

[Zippyjuan]

No doubt doesn't necessarily have to cost money just because our current system is fouled up.

How would you achieve "absolute proof" without our current system? What would you change? Cutting back on appeals lowers costs but increases the risk of killing somebody who didn't do the crime. The proof is less absolute and more errors possible.

[Swordsmyth]

How would you achieve "absolute proof" without our current system? What would you change? Cutting back on appeals lowers costs but increases the risk of killing somebody who didn't do the crime. The proof is less absolute and more errors possible.
Proof is what the prosecution brings to the trial, they either have absolute proof or they don't.
If they don't they should be replaced if they try for the death penalty and cost the taxpayers money for appeals.

[Zippyjuan]

Proof is what the prosecution brings to the trial, they either have absolute proof or they don't.
If they don't they should be replaced if they try for the death penalty and cost the taxpayers money for appeals.

So no appeals? That kills your "absolute proof" demand. If you want fewer trials, the burden of proof is lower and the possibility of errors happening higher. Life in prison costs much less money and society is protected. There is no restitution or deterrence with the death penalty. There is also no way to correct any mistakes once the person is killed.

[Swordsmyth]

So no appeals? That kills your "absolute proof" demand.
I didn't say no appeals.
I said there would be appeals if the proof wasn't absolute.
If the proof was absolute there would be nothing to appeal.

[Origanalist]

Proof is what the prosecution brings to the trial, they either have absolute proof or they don't.
If they don't they should be replaced if they try for the death penalty and cost the taxpayers money for appeals.

Lol, it must be comforting to live in your imaginary universe. Did that pill stick in your throat on the way down?

[Zippyjuan]

I didn't say no appeals.
I said there would be appeals if the proof wasn't absolute.
If the proof was absolute there would be nothing to appeal.

That is what the appeals process is for. To verify that the proof was absolute. Many people on death row were later found to have not committed the crime they were sentenced for- even after appeals.

[Zippyjuan]

Lol, it must be comforting to live in your imaginary universe. Did that pill stick in your throat on the way down?

"If they can't get a guilty verdict- fire them and try again until you get a guilty verdict!" And he claims to seek absolute proof before executing somebody.

[Swordsmyth]

That is what the appeals process is for. To verify that the proof was absolute. Many people on death row were later found to have not committed the crime they were sentenced for- even after appeals.
If they won on appeal then the "proof" against them wasn't absolute.

[Zippyjuan]

If they won on appeal then the "proof" against them wasn't absolute.

But you don't know until you go through the appeal process. And that process is what makes death penalty case so expensive- the need to be as certain as possible you have the right man (or woman). And even then the proof is rarely absolute. And mistakes can still happen.

[brushfire]

As an alternative, the federal government can simply do away with all suicide watches, and let the criminals kill themselves.

Honestly, they cant even get the post office right.... I'd rather every criminal in prison be released, than kill even a single innocent person, and this government HAS killed innocent people. If folks are worried about cost, there are ways of making prison punishment again (MPPA - trademark pending)

[Swordsmyth]

But you don't know until you go through the appeal process. And that process is what makes death penalty case so expensive- the need to be as certain as possible you have the right man (or woman). And even then the proof is rarely absolute. And mistakes can still happen.
If proof was absolute you would know.

Thinking like yours is what has watered down the standard of proof required.

[Swordsmyth]

"If they can't get a guilty verdict- fire them and try again until you get a guilty verdict!" And he claims to seek absolute proof before executing somebody.
That is a total lie.

I never called for a retrial of someone who won on appeal.

[EBounding]

I'm fine with a death penalty as long as the judge, prosecutor and accuser(s) are executed if the convicted end up being exonerated.

[susano]

The death penalty is required for some crimes.

The debate should be about the standard of proof required.


I think the issue is why is the federal government inserting itself into states criminal jurisdiction and usurping their authority over such matters. I live in a state w/o the death penalty yet the feds imposed it in a murder case. If there were no federal govt, the states would still deal criminal matters. We don't need the feds involved in this and, imo, it's unconstitutional. Also, while oppose the death penalty, I don't lose any sleep over any dirt bag who gets it for a horrid crime. Hell, I think the injured parties (loved ones) should have the option of killing the perps, themselves. That goes for the crime of animal abuse, too. The state, being dispassionate, has no reason to kill anyone.

[Swordsmyth]

I think the issue is why is the federal government inserting itself into states criminal jurisdiction and usurping their authority over such matters. I live in a state w/o the death penalty yet the feds imposed it in a murder case. If there were no federal govt, the states would still deal criminal matters. We don't need the feds involved in this and, imo, it's unconstitutional. Also, while oppose the death penalty, I don't lose any sleep over any dirt bag who gets it for a horrid crime. Hell, I think the injured parties (loved ones) should have the option of killing the perps, themselves. That goes for the crime of animal abuse, too. The state, being dispassionate, has no reason to kill anyone.

The feds shouldn't be involved in most criminal cases but there are a few legitimate reasons for a federal death penalty, treason being the biggest one.

If the death penalty is used I see no reason to not allow the rape victim or the family of the murder victim etc. to "throw the switch" but for those who don't wish to there should be a state firing squad to carry out the sentence.

[susano]

If they won on appeal then the "proof" against them wasn't absolute.

Prosecutors are a crooked bunch of MFers so nothing they present can be considered solid proof. There are other means of determining that, such as video, cicumstantial evidence plus a defendant admitting to and giving details of the crime that are not made public (not false/coerced confessions).

Jody Arias is a killer. Chris Watts is a killer. Dahmer was a killer and cannibal. There are many more like that. Quite a few have not been given the DP. The Manson freaks did it and reported with glee what they did. They got the DP but lucked out when the SCOTUs (temporarily) overturned the DP, applying to the period they were sentenced. Yes, there are a lot of Innocence Project types and that's a great argument against the DP. I still think that injured parties should be free to deliver street justice because they have a valid reason.

I remember a case where a guy was convicted of sexually assaulting a child. When he was taken to court for sentencing, the child's mother shot him dead on the courthouse steps. I was rooting for her but she got charged and the idiot California jury convicted her and sent her to prison.

[Swordsmyth]

Prosecutors are a crooked bunch of MFers so nothing they present can be considered solid proof. There are other means of determining that, such as video, cicumstantial evidence plus a defendant admitting to and giving details of the crime that are not made public (not false/coerced confessions).

Jody Arias is a killer. Chris Watts is a killer. Dahmer was a killer and cannibal. There are many more like that. Quite a few have not been given the DP. The Manson freaks did it and reported with glee what they did. They got the DP but lucked out when the SCOTUs (temporarily) overturned the DP, applying to the period they were sentenced. Yes, there are a lot of Innocence Project types and that's a great argument against the DP. I still think that injured parties should be free to deliver street justice because they have a valid reason.

I remember a case where a guy was convicted of sexually assaulting a child. When he was taken to court for sentencing, the child's mother shot him dead on the courthouse steps. I was rooting for her but she got charged and the idiot California jury convicted her and sent her to prison.
If the state doesn't make an air tight case then how can we allow citizens to kill because they believe the person was guilty?
That's even more likely to produce wrongful deaths.

[susano]

The feds shouldn't be involved in most criminal cases but there are a few legitimate reasons for a federal death penalty, treason being the biggest one.

If the death penalty is used I see no reason to not allow the rape victim or the family of the murder victim etc. to "throw the switch" but for those who don't wish to there should be a state firing squad to carry out the sentence.

I have to disagree because the state is not injured and has no emotional involvement. They should not be allowed to kill anyone. Their job, it seems to me, is to prtect the public which means removing the criminal from general society where they can do no more harm.

[susano]

If the state doesn't make an air tight case then how can we allow citizens to kill because they believe the person was guilty?
That's even more likely to produce wrongful deaths.

I don't think so but if it does happen, then charge the killer with murder. Prosecutors frame people and withhold exculpatory evidence just to get convictions because WINNING, which all most care about. Not so for the loved ones of murder victims.

[Swordsmyth]

I have to disagree because the state is not injured and has no emotional involvement. They should not be allowed to kill anyone. Their job, it seems to me, is to prtect the public which means removing the criminal from general society where they can do no more harm.
The state is charged with carrying out justice.
Executions are justice and they remove the killer or rapist etc. from society.

[Swordsmyth]

I don't think so but if it does happen, then charge the killer with murder. Prosecutors frame people and withhold exculpatory evidence just to get convictions because WINNING, which all most care about. Not so for the loved ones of murder victims.
The avenger would have to prove a case in order to get off, I would allow that but if you couldn't prove an iron clad case that the person you killed deserved it you would be guilty of murder.

We can't have people running around killing people and then say we should just believe them because they were raped or their family member was killed.

[susano]

The avenger would have to prove a case in order to get off, I would allow that but if you couldn't prove an iron clad case that the person you killed deserved it you would be guilty of murder.

We can't have people running around killing people and then say we should just believe them because they were raped or their family member was killed.

No, the prosecutors would have to prove the avenger guilty of killing an innocent person.

Why can't we have injured parties killing those who killed their loved ones? The state(s) does it. The injured parties are the ones who have the gripe! Screw the sate. Frontier justice would be the only righteous revenge when it comes to a death penalty.

[Swordsmyth]

No, the prosecutors would have to prove the avenger guilty of killing an innocent person.
The dead man is presumed innocent until proven guilty by the killer.


Why can't we have injured parties killing those who killed their loved ones? The state(s) does it. The injured parties are the ones who have the gripe! Screw the sate. Frontier justice would be the only righteous revenge when it comes to a death penalty.
If they can prove the person they killed deserved it I'm perfectly happy to let any member of the public do the killing but if proof isn't required you are going to end up with people lying or just being mistaken right and left, then you will get blood feuds going between families.

[devil21]

Not everything Moses said came from GOD, Christ made that clear about divorce.
GOD gave the command to kill murderers to Noah.




Proof must be absolute and unquestionable.

Uh oh, it's becoming clear now. SS is one of those Noahide Law Talmudist types, which has been adopted by the Mormons. There's a quiet yet large contingent of Trumpkins that support implementing strict Noahide Law over the world, as the basis of the legal system underpinning their "God's Kingdom" world government. Blaspheme their notion of God? Execution by decapitation. Kill someone? Execution by decapitation. Have sex outside of wedlock or cheat on spouse? Execution by decapitation. And so on and so on. Basically, off with your head if you don't follow their super strict religious laws.

I'm reminded again of the Handmaid's Tale.

SS is basically just a Zionist Talmud-following Jew under a different denominational name. Makes a lot of sense now. Thanks for the thread PAF. It clicked some pieces into place. This topic is well worth looking into to understand the real motivations of SS and people like him.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ucf4WM038OM

http://stopnoahidelaw.blogspot.com/2017/05/united-nations-signs-declaration-of.html


On June 10th, 2013, United Nations diplomats from several different nations, including Egypt and Israel, attended the "One People, One World" Conference which was hosted by The Institute of Noahide Code (INC), a UN-accredited NGO dedicated to spreading awareness of the Seven Noahide Laws. A summary of the conference was uploaded as a PDF to the United Nations website which you can view below. According to this UN summary of the conference, the attending delegates signed a "Declaration of the Seven Laws of Noah," which emphasized the importance of the Seven Noahide Laws in maintaining peace, justice, and harmony among peoples and nations. The conference organizer, Rabbi Cohen, emphasized the need for "monotheism" in order to unite the world under "the one true G-d" and reiterated the Noahide Law prohibitions against "idolatry", "blasphemy" and "forbidden sexual relations." The UN document states the Noahide Laws are laws "which all peoples of the world are obligated to follow." The document also mentions the "Lubavitcher Rebbe", presumably Rabbi Schneerson who said that non-Jews exist only for the sake of Jews. Since 2013, the UN has hosted several other INC conferences. (Videos Below) Why would the United Nations sign a "Declaration of the Seven Laws of Noah," which are Jewish supremacist laws from the Babylonian Talmud and command non-Jews to set up courts which are at least theoretically supposed to execute non-Jews who do not follow Jewish strictures? Why would the UN document state that the Noahide Laws are laws "which all peoples of the world are obligated to follow." Does the UN really believe that Noahide Laws are mandatory for all nations and that we must all submit to the "one true G-d" of the Jewish Talmud?

[Swordsmyth]

Uh oh, it's becoming clear now. SS is one of those Noahide Law Talmudist types, which has been adopted by the Mormons. There's a quiet yet large contingent of Trumpkins that support implementing strict Noahide Law over the world, as the basis of the legal system underpinning their "God's Kingdom" world government. Blaspheme their notion of God? Execution by decapitation. Kill someone? Execution by decapitation. Have sex outside of wedlock or cheat on spouse? Execution by decapitation. And so on and so on. Basically, off with your head if you don't follow their super strict religious laws.

I'm reminded again of the Handmaid's Tale.
LOL

You are deranged.

[devil21]

LOL

You are deranged.

If you really believe in Jesus as you claim, I suggest you ditch Mormonism asap and start following Christianity. The Noahide "God's Kingdom" considers belief in Jesus to be blasphemy and punishable by death.

[Swordsmyth]

If you really believe in Jesus as you claim, I suggest you ditch Mormonism asap and start following Christianity. The Noahide "God's Kingdom" considers belief in Jesus to be blasphemy and punishable by death.
LOL

You have jumped the shark.

[devil21]

LOL

You have jumped the shark.

You really should take some time to research these things instead of dismissing it. You're being taught a false doctrine.

[Swordsmyth]

You really should take some time to research these things instead of dismissing it. You're being taught a false doctrine.

And you are just making nonsense up.

:tears:

[devil21]

And you are just making nonsense up.

:tears:

Ok, well, carry on then.

For anyone interested in what the globalist agenda and Agenda 21 2030 is really about, research the Noahide Laws, even down to the agenda to push people toward vegetarian/veganism. Eating meat is one of the offenses punishable by death.

[Swordsmyth]

Ok, well, carry on then.

For anyone interested in what the globalist agenda and Agenda 21 2030 is really about, research the Noahide Laws, even down to the agenda to push people toward vegetarian/veganism. Eating meat is one of the offenses punishable by death.
I'm sure you are right.
But that has nothing to do with the command to kill murderers or Mormon doctrine.

Go ahead and keep making a fool of yourself though.

[Swordsmyth]

Ok, well, carry on then.

For anyone interested in what the globalist agenda and Agenda 21 2030 is really about, research the Noahide Laws, even down to the agenda to push people toward vegetarian/veganism. Eating meat is one of the offenses punishable by death.
And Noah was told specifically that animals would be food for him so whoever made up that nonsense wasn't reading what GOD commanded Noah.

[devil21]

I'm sure you are right.
But that has nothing to do with the command to kill murderers or Mormon doctrine.

Go ahead and keep making a fool of yourself though.

Cuz' your version of a world united under "God's Kingdom", based on noted cabalist and Freemason Joseph Smith's concocted religion, is totally different than the world united under "God's Kingdom" based on cabalist Talmud and Talmud-for-the-gentiles Freemasonry.

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/jlaw-whtvr.gif

[Occam's Banana]

Proof is what the prosecution brings to the trial [...]

No it isn't. Evidence is what the prosecution brings to trial. Evidence is not proof.


[...] they either have absolute proof or they don't.

Then they don't - because there can never be any such thing as "absolute proof" in any empirical matter.

Even the most seemingly damning of evidence, such as confessions, audio/video recordings, eyewitness testimony, etc., can be coerced, tampered with, tainted, or simply wrong.

It is for this very reason that the relevant standard is referred to as "beyond a reasonable doubt" relative to the available empirical evidence and under the assumption that that evidence is accurate.

The fact that the aforementioned assumption can be unwarranted (as numerous actual, historical cases amply demonstrate) gives the lie to the notion of "absolute proof" as a viable standard (rather than a reassuringly confident but ultimately empty platitude).


If they don't [have "absolute proof"] they should be replaced if they try for the death penalty and cost the taxpayers money for appeals.

But why should it matter if they try for the death penalty under such circumstances - unless it is possible that they might succeed despite the fact that they do not have "absolute proof?"

After all, if they cannot succeed (because their "proof" is not "absolute"), then their attempt at the death penalty is pointlessly futile - and any "cost [to] the taxpayers [...] for appeals" is entirely warranted (because, as you assure us in post #28, "there would be appeals if the proof wasn't absolute.")

But if they can succeed (despite that their "proof" is not "absolute"), then it must ipso facto be the case that the death penalty can be applied absent "absolute proof."

[Origanalist]

No it isn't. Evidence is what the prosecution brings to trial. Evidence is not proof.



They don't. There can never be any such thing as "absolute proof" in any empirical matter.

Even the most seemingly damning of evidence, such as confessions, audio/video recordings, eyewitness testimony, etc., can be coerced, tampered with, tainted, or simply wrong.

It is for this very reason that the relevant standard is referred to as "beyond a reasonable doubt" relative to the empirical evidence and under the assumption that the evidence is accurate.

The fact that the aforementioned assumption can be unwarranted (as any number of actual, historical cases amply demonstrate) gives the lie to the notion of "absolute proof" as a viable standard (rather than a reassuring but empty platitude).



But why should it matter if they try for the death penalty under such circumstances, unless it is possible that they might succeed despite the fact that they do not have "absolute proof?"

After all, if they cannot succeed (because their "proof" is not "absolute"), then their attempt at the death penalty is pointlessly futile, and any "cost [to] the taxpayers [...] for appeals" is entirely warranted. (As you assure us in post #28, "there would be appeals if the proof wasn't absolute.")

But if they can succeed despite that their "proof" is not "absolute", then it must ipso facto be the case that the death penalty can be applied absent "absolute proof."

Hush you, how dare you spoil that narrative with logic?

[Stratovarious]

I think the issue is why is the federal government inserting itself into states criminal jurisdiction and usurping their authority over such matters. I live in a state w/o the death penalty yet the feds imposed it in a murder case. If there were no federal govt, the states would still deal criminal matters. We don't need the feds involved in this and, imo, it's unconstitutional. Also, while oppose the death penalty, I don't lose any sleep over any dirt bag who gets it for a horrid crime. Hell, I think the injured parties (loved ones) should have the option of killing the perps, themselves. That goes for the crime of animal abuse, too. The state, being dispassionate, has no reason to kill anyone.
Death sentence is excessive imv, there are too many mistakes and frame ups, I think that only when
In a capital case the defendant clearly pleads guilty (not as a negotiation tool) , it would be perhaps acceptable.
The Federal Govt belongs outside of state affairs.

[Superfluous Man]

I'm pretty much where the OP is.

I'm not ideologically opposed to the idea that the death penalty could ever be a just and proper punishment. But it's too important of a matter to let the government be involved in.

The same goes for all other law enforcement for that matter.

[Warlord]

General Washington supported the death penalty:


Best known for his role as Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army and later as the first president of the United States, George Washington is one of the most respected figures in American history. The image of the man, himself, that lingers in public imagination is largely defined by his celebrated role in the Revolution. One important part of his role as the commander of the Continental Army merits a closer look. Washington was a notorious disciplinarian and enforced the military code by insisting on harsh punishment for even minor violations. He wrote to Congress on several occasions suggesting that they adjust the code to allow for harsher punishments in order to keep the soldiers in line. Among other forms of punishment, he supported the liberal use of the death penalty and insisted that hangings be public examples.

Here are some of the Death Warrants he signed:

http://blog.nyhistory.org/death-warrant-signed-by-george-washington/

[Anti Federalist]

I am not in favor of capital punishment at any level.

There is long and sordid history of government "getting it wrong" and convicting innocent people of capital crimes.

I do not trust government to fix a pothole, I'm certainly not going to trust it with a death sentence.

[shakey1]

Like with so many things, the fed should not be involved.

[susano]

Ok, well, carry on then.

For anyone interested in what the globalist agenda and Agenda 21 2030 is really about, research the Noahide Laws, even down to the agenda to push people toward vegetarian/veganism. Eating meat is one of the offenses punishable by death.

I don't know how this got from abolishing the death penalty to Noahide laws, Jews and cutting off heads but I'm a vegetarian of 40+ years and it has fvck all to do with Jews, who are A) meat eaters and B) believe in Kosher slaughter (= halal). I'm down on the Talmud, Kabbalah and decapitation - all interesting subjects - but what does it have to do with any of this?

BTW, agree on Mormons and Freemasonry (you can see the ceremonies right on Youtube) but nobody here has been advocating for any of that stuff.

[susano]

I am not in favor of capital punishment at any level.

There is long and sordid history of government "getting it wrong" and convicting innocent people of capital crimes.

I do not trust government to fix a pothole, I'm certainly not going to trust it with a death sentence.

Same here BUT, I'll bet if you'd been on the jury of the lady in California who shot the guy who molested her child you would have found her not guilty because common sense.

[susano]

General Washington supported the death penalty:



Here are some of the Death Warrants he signed:

http://blog.nyhistory.org/death-warrant-signed-by-george-washington/


Interesting and not too surprising. The world was a much harsher place in the past. History is full of misery and brutality. If only the "oppressed" SJWs understood that.