Jury finds Pittsburgh synagogue mass shooter eligible to face the death penalty
Jury finds Pittsburgh synagogue mass shooter eligible to face the death penalty
The jury in the trial of Pittsburgh synagogue mass shooter Robert Bowers found Thursday he is eligible for the death penalty, shifting the focus of the proceeding to whether he should be sentenced to death or life in prison.
You're viewing a single thread.
Clearly this guy is guilty as hell, but I still think he should get life in prison, not death. There's already been enough killing. Even if he gets the death sentence, he's still going to sit in prison for years or decades until all the legal mechanisms have been exhausted. Let's not spend any more court or lawyer time here.
If I was facing life or the death penalty, I choose death.
Wasting away, fighting for survival, no entertainment, no vices (in theory), etc.
No appeals, expedite it. Take me behind the courthouse and put a few rounds in my head. Be thorough.
I'm miserable enough living in "the greatest country in the world," just get it over with. My "life" is lost either way, death just prevents the rampant suffering along the way.
I never thought cost was a good argument against the death penalty. If it was cheaper would you be convinced the other way?
No. It's not about the financial cost. It's primarily about the possibility of making a mistake. Here, it doesn't appear to be the case, but even so, like I said, it will still tie up the courts with appeals, when they could be hearing other cases. Just make it a life sentence in the first place and get it over with.
Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.
Right so if it isn't about the financial cost then why bring it up? You have better arguments don't play a weak one.
If I believed in the justice of the death penalty it wouldn't convince me out of it costing more vs life sentences. If I believe the death penalty is unjust it wouldn't convince me that it was good even if the costs were reversed.
I didn't. I said court and lawyer time, not money.
Does that change the argument?