No, Mike Pence, We Should Not Make It Easier To Execute Mass Shooters
Pence suggested executing mass shooters in "months, not years," but that would remove crucial procedural protections—and not just for those who are obviously guilty.

During last night's Republican presidential debate, former Vice President Mike Pence had a startling answer to a question about what he would do to reduce gun violence.
"I am sick and tired of these mass shootings happening in the United States of America," said Pence. "And if I'm president of the United States, I'm going to go to the Congress of the United States, and we're going to pass a federal expedited death penalty for anyone involved in a mass shooting so that they will meet their fate in months, not years. It is unconscionable that the Parkland shooter…is actually going to spend the rest of his life behind bars in Florida. That's not justice. We have to mete out justice and send a message to these would-be killers that you are not going to live out your days behind bars. You're going to meet justice."
This plan is not just unlikely to reduce mass shootings; it would leave lots of accused criminals without important procedural protections. While "mass shooting" doesn't have a set legal definition, one common definition puts it as any shooting with at least four victims, including people who were injured rather than killed. By that metric, over 3,500 mass shootings occurred from 2015 to 2022. Roughly 95 percent of these shootings resulted in fewer than four deaths, according to Everytown for Gun Safety's data. That includes a lot of crimes that do not look like Parkland—crimes in which there could be serious doubts about whether the accused is in fact guilty.
Pence is presumably thinking of those who commit the worst deliberate mass shootings But trying to exact even harsher punishments for the very few who commit such terrible violence will primarily end up affecting those accused of, say, drive-by shootings where the perpetrator isn't obvious.
For this reason, expediting the execution process would massively increase the risk that the state executes a wrongfully convicted person. Pence complained that it takes decades to actually execute someone after a conviction, but that time is typically spent exhausting legal appeal or clemency options. Sometimes, these decades of legal appeals help overturn wrongful convictions, such as in 192 cases of death-row exonerations recorded by the Death Penalty Information Center. In total, one 2014 study estimated that as many as 4 percent of those sentenced to death in America are innocent.
In addition to the increased risk of wrongful execution, making it easier to execute someone sentenced to death would likely not affect the number of people killed by gun violence—or even the number of people killed by mass shootings. There's considerable debate over whether harsher sentences can deter crime in some circumstances. However, it's difficult to see how a swifter death penalty will deter those who plan to commit the worst and rarest mass shootings, considering just how often these shootings end in suicide or the shooter being killed by police or bystanders.
So while Pence and one other Republican presidential candidate are all too excited to make it easier for the state to execute people, expediting the death penalty would be anything but just.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
If narrowly enough tailored, the QUICK killing (AKA "capital punishment") of OBVIOUSLY guilty mass murderers should be BLESSED, not condemned! See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Fort_Hood_shooting ... Twat more need I say? I do NOT want MY taxes to pay for the 20-years-or-more costs of endless appeals for low-life SCUM mass murderers!
We absolutely should. There only reason not to use the death penalty for mass murderers is the question of guilt and due to circumstances, that's never in doubt.
Prisons are not libertarian.
Neither are State executions.
Pick one.
You can pick your own nose.
A bold assertion.
The retaliatory use of force by a minarchist state is perfectly libertarian. To claim otherwise is pure-quill idiocy.
No, you are another statist who has no principles.
Trials are for determining guilt beyond a "reasonable doubt". When someone is guilty even beyond all unreasonable doubts, when their guilt is obvious on its face, I am all for cutting back on the typical constitutional protections and skipping right to disposing of the human garbage.
It used to be that felonies were reserved for murderers and rapists and such. Now anything can be a felony.
SWAT teams were created for hostage situations and shooters. Now they serve warrants.
In cases where guilt is obvious beyond a doubt, and the crime is extraordinarily serious, deprive them of rights like standard of doubt and representation. Thirty years later....
Refusing to leave someone's front lawn is a felony in Arizona. Yes, it's absurd.
Retorts someone who does not own a house.... And of course, you're wrong. You can be a clueless asshole all you wish... on public property.
Look at what the definition of terrorist has turned into.
Asset forfeiture. Meant for drug kingpins, used on anyone with a lot of cash.
I could go on.
Moral of the story is don't give them any more power.
My issue is with drug kingpins like Pfizer.
Problem is, as the article pointed out, any such law is inevitably going to be stretched way beyond its stated purpose. Prosecutors eager to look TOUGH! will exploit it in cases where the identity of the shooter isn't ironclad. Any law written narrowly enough to avoid any chance of that is going to be so narrow as to be nearly useless. If you doubt that this would be abused, I invite you to study the history of a whole host of laws and policies, from the Espionage Act to RICO to asset forfeiture to the PATRIOT Act.
Where Pence was wrong was in regards to involving the federal government where no violation of federal law has taken place.
Yes. The federal government has no jurisdiction.
Exactly. I have no problem with capital punishment for unquestionably guilty murderers. But the federal government has to stay in its lane and let Sutherland states handle problems outside of the purview of federal law. If not, we will end up with all of law enforcement under federal control. Which is antithetical to the constitution.
That was the rub for me. I've got no problem with the putting a bullet in their brain immediately after the trial. If there is no question of guilt then why the hell would/should we waste time and resources on them? I'm sympathetic to arguments that government corruption and ineptitude should make us skeptical of the death penalty. I just don't see why a mass murderer who was caught in the act should get to die of old age. From a libertarian perspective I'd feel happier if these people were ruled outlaws and legally open for some vigilante justice.
Pence was wrong to bring the federal government into it, but not wrong about swift justice as the Constitution demands. Life is not justice for murder.
I would prefer it if it were easier to shoot back at mass shooters.
That's the libertarian response.
Damn straight. You just follow them home. Wait until they're asleep. Shoot them and anyone who would defend them or act on their behalf. Dump all the bodies in drums full of acid. Dump the drums of acid out off the tollway somewhere between Gary and Portage.
What's that? You still want police, trials, investigations, and justice? Due process? Punishments that fit crimes? You just meant we should only execute mass murderers in real time? My copy of the NAP doesn't say anything about those things and I thought your whole point was that those things were broken anyway?
I want the ability to implement self-defense if a mass shooter is trying to kill me. Apparently, that’s a strange concept for you.
First, I replied to Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf, not you.
Second, I know it might be hard to get out of your own head, but I didn’t say anything about not being able to execute people in real time, Emma did.
Third, are you under the impression that the majority of The World, The US, or even the majority of this magazine or forum contributors are similarly aligned libertarians that just magically grok your (Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf’s) unstated assumptions? More importantly for you, do you want them drawing the lines against you where you stand, or against me where I stand?
Lastly, since the concept I, supposedly, find so strange is so clearly buttoned down for you, exactly how long after the initiation of aggression is the NAP considered to have been violated? A minute? An hour? A day? 5 yrs.? Is it written into your copy of the NAP? Where’d you get that copy? Or is “your” (again Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf’s) vague invocation of the NAP/the libertarian response substantively akin to Reason’s immigration argument about borders being imaginary social constructs that sound like maybe nice goals someday in the future but doesn’t hold the least bit of water and doesn’t even really look good on paper today.
Look, I agree with your right to buy a gun, probably further than you do, but if you think the number of homicides in Chicago is because all those people don’t have access to firearms, you’re trying to peddle bullshit that you yourself don’t buy. "Easier to shoot back at mass shooters" on the S. side of Chicago (from where Emma inevitably pulls a significant portion of her data) is your conception of "the libertarian response"?
Arguing with the voices in your head, as usual. Even da CHUD is making more sense than you are today. Your "questions" about the NAP are pretty nonsensical, but I'll take a shot anyway. Personally, I'd say that self-defense ceases to be legitimate as soon as the aggressor ceases to pose any immediate threat. It's generally frowned on to continue using force against someone fleeing or incapacitated, for instance.
It’s generally frowned on to continue using force against someone fleeing or incapacitated, for instance.
ORLY? So someone takes your shit and flees NAP forbids pursuit?
It's not the voices in my head, it's the vast array of facts that exist in the real world. The fact that you cannot conceptualize them, let alone other people or how they might interpret those facts outside the NAP doesn't make the facts or the other people less real it just makes you look abjectly stupid.
Because, generally, someone robs a bank and flees, people absolutely support the use of force to apprehend them and bring them to justice.
We could be here all day listing concepts that m.c doesn't quite understand. In this case, they get the principle right, but still insist on missing the point completely and taking yet another whack at that strawman. They'll get him one of these days!
We could be here all day listing concepts that m.c doesn’t quite understand.
Yup. And in all that time it wouldn't even dawn on you, even if I plainly said it, that your narrow conception doesn't cover a tiny fraction of cases of criminal law going back into the early days of feudalism. Let alone modern criminal law.
You're the Dunning-Kruger morons saying, "That's Easy!" to every. single. criminal. case. regardless of whether you know the facts and have the answers or not. You're no better and in many ways worse than the self-righteous twits you claim to be replacing.
Mad.casual took a call to end victim disarmament zones and allow effective self-defense as a call for vigilante justice. He either has not followed the news about mass shootings (most mass shooters choose a place where guns are banned, and when there's an armed citizen present with a gun the shooter is probably going to be stopped before it's a "mass shooting"), or more likely he does not even get the concept of self defense. Either way, he has demonstrated complete lack of rationality on this subject.
False. Jerry B.’s post *may* have been a call for an end to gun free zones, Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf’s post almost certainly was not. A pissing into the wind and acting like you make the rain to cleanse the nation of State sponsored executions.
Once again for clarity because you morons can't seem to put a nickels' worth of sense together between the lot of you: I'm not against self-defense, but the idea that it will solve every case of capital punishment is more unicorn-fart huffing than the EV push. If you've got some master plan as to how more self-defense leads to fewer court cases and/or deaths murders, you're going to have to do better than "Because the NAP says so!" because even a retarded 6 yr. old can see that it, does not, in fact, make any such claims.
Fuckin’ a bubba! Fuckin’ a.
Indeed. Had the Aurora Colorado theater shooter tried that in Spokane, where we are notoriously well armed, he wouldn’t have made it anywhere near double digits before someone dropped him. In fact, the only major mass shoot g we’ve ever had took place at Fairchild Air Force Base in 1994. Why? Because Fairchild is a gun free zone save for military police and a few others. Same thing when Major Hassan shot up Fort Hood.
Gun free zones just invite mass shootings.
Apparently, something like 97% of mass shootings occur in gun-free zones.
https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2021R1/Downloads/PublicTestimonyDocument/5273
Of course. Predators seek an easy meal, not a challenge.
Outlaws. Pretty sure Reason opposes vigilante justice as well though. I feel like there is a pattern of defending the worst people and maliciously attacking everyone doing some amount of good.
Defending the worst people, magical bullshit good intentions thinking, *and* maliciously attacking anyone even acknowledging more than The One Right Way™ to do good.
>>It is unconscionable that the Parkland shooter…is actually going to spend the rest of his life behind bars in Florida. That's not justice.
I welcome Mike to personally mete out the justice and report back.
Putting Mike Laursen in a cell with someone for life is far crueler than even burning the inmate at the stake.
Eh... We can have a somewhat expedited death penalty without giving up protections.
In my head, the timeline would go something like: After the trial and sentencing, one month to file your appeal to the circuit court. Two months for them to hear the appeal and rule. One month to appeal to the en banc court. Two months for them to hear the appeal and rule. One month to appeal to the Supreme Court. Two months for them to hear the appeal and rule. That's 9 months - and if you want to apply for clemency you do it *during* this time if you're smart. Some cases may involve remands which increase the timeline, but presumably most won't be heard by the en banc circuit court or by the Supreme Court, which shortens it. If we're going to have a death penalty (and I'd actually prefer we not have it) we shouldn't have people on death row for a decade plus.
True, but it's pretty awful that the appeals take decades and the innocent person is in prison (on death row, no less) for those decades. Why should it take decades for an innocent person to win on appeal? If it's because new evidence becomes available, I don't think "keep this person on death row for 20 years just in case new evidence turns up" is any way to run a justice system.
A bigger issue, really, is making this a federal crime in the first place. We don't need more federal crimes for things that are already heavily punished crimes in every state. It's going to use some dumb justification like "the gun once traveled in interstate commerce" even though nobody really cares about the commerce aspect.
Another issue is that expedited appeals mean you're putting off other cases.
The State should never be able to legally kill anyone. That you think State executions should be expedited before expediting all justice in general shows how unlibertarian you are.
>>The State should never be able to legally kill anyone
absolutely not. word.
I can't totally agree. There are situations where it's legit for agents of the state to kill people. If cops shoot people who are posing an actual and immediate threat to someone, I'm okay with that. If military personnel kill people threatening the country that's also justified. (If you want to argue for narrowing the definition of who's an actual threat to the country and drastically scale back our foreign adventures, I'm 100% on board.) But I will agree that when it comes to deadly force, the standard should be the same for state actors and private citizens. ie, it's acceptable in the face of an immediate threat, but not as retaliation after the fact. Aside from any ethical arguments, I simply don't trust governments to get it right anywhere close to 100% of the time.
We have an innocent person held by the state in prison on death row, and you want to delay their appeals for years or even decades? Is THAT libertarian?
What's awful is that you acknowledge that long appeals do uncover fraudulent death sentences, and want to eliminate those long appeals.
How about eliminating those fraudulent convictions first?
How about eliminating those fraudulent convictions first?
OK, what's that got to do with sentencing?
With a faster appeals process, the fraudulent death sentence is uncovered faster.
You must be dreaming. You certainly are out of step with reality.
Not without some significant reforms to the appeals process. Currently it's set up to prioritize the finality of decisions over anything as minor as justice. Until that changes, speeding up the process is only speeding up unjust sentences.
Sure, let's do that. Eliminate the bad convictions. Once you figure out how, let us know.
Is there a reason why the appeals have to take that long to be effective? Why is an appeal 10 years after conviction better than an appeal 30 days after conviction?
Once you figure out how, let us know.
It’s a lie. The same lie as allowing humane execution practices. The same lie about how difficult it is to define when a human life has definitively begun. The same lie as reining in welfare so that we can have an open borders policy.
He doesn’t give a shit about whether more or fewer people die as the result of his policies, he just wants to feel self-righteous knowing his correct policies were enacted and everything is more conforming to his notion of equity. This is his pet cause.
Even better – when the person is accused, give him a large defense fund and a lawyer with experience in death penalty cases. Put major effort into trial preparation – so many of these death penalty cases involve an incompetent or drunken lawyer who should not even be in practice missing key points in the defense, points which postconviction counsel then have to dig up.
So let the killer have his zealous and effective, and well-funded defense at his trial. Then have a thorough state high court review within a year or less, and if he loses, unless the U. S. Supreme Court intervenes, assist the killer in shuffling off this mortal coil.
Not entirely a bad idea, but it's not gonna fly. Any politician supporting such policies is virtually certain to be tarred with the "soft on crime" brush by the lawn order crowd. The chances of getting a majority of legislators to vote for it and getting a governor to sign it are effectively nil.
There are several reasons it can take decades for an innocent person to get a wrongful conviction overturned. One is lack of resources. Most of these defendants aren't exactly rich. A lucky few may attract enough attention to get some support from groups such as the Innocence Project, but most have to rely on public defenders. They vary widely in quality and courts have actually ruled that the right to counsel doesn't necessarily mean the right to competent counsel. Even the most competent and motivated tend to have heavy case loads and limited budgets.
Prosecutors have several advantages. They tend to have more resources available than public defenders. Judges tend to be far more deferential to the prosecution, either because they're legit lawn order types or just because being seen as "soft" on crime could derail their career. Prosecutors have also been known to introduce highly questionable evidence or greatly exaggerate the reliability of evidence. They've also been know to fail to disclose potentially exculpatory evidence to the defense even though they're legally required to do so. It's almost impossible to punish prosecutors for even the most egregious misbehavior, so it shouldn't be surprising that they occasional succumb to the temptation to play a little fast and loose with the rules.
Finally, the entire appeals process is strongly biased against overturning convictions. Little things like new evidence don't matter. The defendant has to prove that there was some kind of procedural error in the original trial, and it has to be a whopper. All kinds of errors from ineffective counsel to perjured testimony to prosecutorial misconduct can be ruled "harmless" if the judge can somehow argue that they wouldn't have changed the outcome. Even if the verdict is overturned, that's no guarantee the defendant is going to walk. Prosecutors would sooner walk barefoot over broken glass than admit they were wrong, so they often keep re-trying cases even after they've fallen apart.
Clemency is also largely a non-starter. Executives tend to be sparing about granting it, and the system often makes it more difficult for them to do so. They're especially unlikely to do so as the appeals process is ongoing. Even when they do step in, only the most sympathetic defendants are likely to receive pardons or commutations. Many of the people in question aren't exactly sweet and cuddly even if they didn't actually do the crime in question. And once again, there's the fear that accusations of being "soft" could be a liability. That's why the most mercy tends to come from politicians who see then end of their career coming anyway for whatever reason.
That includes a lot of crimes that do not look like Parkland—crimes in which there could be serious doubts about whether the accused is in fact guilty.
Polish that turd, Emma! Polish that turd! 484 homicides in Chicago this year but that's just charges and includes a lot of crimes like women shooting abusive boyfriends and people shooting at teens that are just wildin' so we really need the SAFE-T Act and more justice for Nicholas Cruz.
Jesus Christ, what a stupid hill to die on.
Yeah, but you're gonna do it anyway. Do you seriously believe that prosecutors won't stretch and abuse this law far beyond the nominal intent? Please show me any "tough on crime" laws that haven't been.
Yeah, but you’re gonna do it anyway.
Please show me where the LP has effectively and permanently enacted police reform with any concomitant or resulting reduction in crime, costs, or both. Anywhere at all. I'll even take a collection of apartments owned by a landlord who's a member of the LP or an HOA that's run by *L*ibertarians. Bring receipts. I'll wait.
You couldn't/can't, as a party or ideology, get a parking ticket reversed but, when DeSantis signs a bill doing something he and the state has every right to do, you try to flex and pretend like you're doing something other than sitting their with your thumb up your own ass.
Newsflash: Even people largely sympathetic to your cause aren't buying it anymore.
Make execution of mass shooters easier by making Constitutional Carry the National law.
I rise to a point of order - - - - - - - -
While I don't disagree, wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which gets full first.
That is if there's still room/hands after wishing for welfare cuts/SS privatization in exchange for more lax immigration policies.
Until then, Nick Cruz is probably the single stupidest reason to use to justify the state not murdering/executing people and people who wish to be taken seriously or even non-maliciously, should stop doing that.
I could raise you a Ted Bundy and a John Gacy.
It's good in theory, but my sister and her husband were at that Vegas shooting where the guy unloaded on the concert.
I'm not sure what being strapped in that situation would have done to help, but running and hiding (Inside of a Krispy Kreme, which is hilarious if you know my brother-in-law) seemed to work.
That was a single case, unlike every other mass shooter. (Even the Texas Clock Tower shooter back in the 1960's had to shift most of his attention to taking cover once civilians got their rifles out of their cars and returned fire - and the cops that finally went up the tower to get him borrowed long guns from a civilian.) Make laws for the usual course of events, not the exception.
So it was a single case... except for the other case where the shooter continued to shoot people even after taking fire from civilians on the ground (the vast majority of whom *still* aren't trained to take a ground-level shot at an elevated position over any real distance). And that is, of course, if we ignore the 2016 Dallas case where the shooter killed 5 armed officers and still wound up barricaded behind a door for several hours before finally being blown up, not shot. Not to mention all the cases from Prohibition to the 60s where every 2-bit gangster and weather underground member would kill innocent civilians, intentionally or accidentally, while refusing to be taken alive. Because you believe in open/concealed carry pixie dust hard enough, all that law and all those deaths just *poof!* disappear from history.
I don't have a problem with people exercising their right to self-defense. As indicated above, I probably have less of an issue with them doing it more liberally than you do. My issue is with you abject morons acting like, "Just give cops and civilians more guns and we'll never have to execute anyone ever again." while regarding any more liberal take on justice as reprehensible. You aren't solving any problems and you don't care. You're just another breed of FYTW authoritarians that doesn't understand humans, social interaction, or human society at even a basic level and don't give a shit as long as your laws get enacted your way.
Authoritarians sure have a boner for condemning other people to die.
So you side with Nikolas Cruz.
It is authoritarian to punish murderers?
True, but in this case he's just talking about doing what we promised, after they're already condemned.
Mass killers? Well….. yeah. What the fuck else should we do with them? It’s not like we have Phantom Zone projectors. And why should the taxpayers have to bear the expense to house and care for these shitbags for perhaps a half century or more?
In total, one 2014 study estimated that as many as 4 percent of those sentenced to death in America are innocent.
Thanks for actually putting numbers to the failure rate. 4% is pretty damn good, given everything else.
Not particularly "for" nor "against" ... just found some stats I found interesting on the topic.
https://dpic-cdn.org/production/documents/pdf/FactSheet.pdf
One in twenty-five is an astronomically high failure rate when you're talking about death as the downside.
A zero percent failure rate is impossible, as is convincing people that punishment for heinous crimes doesn't merit death.
How much lower does it need to go.
a lot fucking lower than 4%.
IDK, 4% is below Blackstone’s Ratio (ignoring the fact that in 2020 we locked up a lot more innocent people than the number of guilty people we let go) and, as I indicated elsewhere, it’s not like all of you guys would be happy with 98, 99, or even 99.9% or even conceptualize that locking up innocent death penalty convicts, typically for life with a population compose of 96, 98, 99, or even 99.9% actually guilty death penalty convicts is still a bad thing. Worse if you start locking up more of them and wind up effectively State-subsidizing more innocent deaths.
So what the hell do you care if locked up murderers kill each other? Zero expense to taxpayers and very final. It's practically community service!
So what the hell do you care if locked up murderers kill each other?
OK, so we agree that you don't actually care if more innocent people wind up dead at greater overall cost to the taxpayer. It's just about trying to pwn your opposition based on your perception of their morals or principles and then pretending like *they're* the ones fabricating straw men or tilting at windmills.
‘Estimated’? By whom? And how do they know it’s 4%?
I’m skeptical.
4% is not a great number, but it's not a terrible number. However, charging me to keep 4% of a population locked in, for life or effectively so, with a population that's known to be 96% composed of homicidal maniacs *definitely* isn't really a better number.
"One study" showed that between 2001-2018 when executions plummeted 5-fold, homicides in prison climbed 4-fold and suicides doubled. Were libertarians up in arms about whether 2% or 4% or 8 or even 16% were innocent? Of course not! They were happy as shit to dust off their pants that no one got executed, and charge the taxpayers for the numerically increased number of homicides. After all, it wasn't them who did the murdering.
This really is the same SJW bullshit about immigration or welfare carried over to criminal justice and execution. Moving more people off of death row doesn't inherently make people more virtuous and, as such, it doesn't make death row or cell block D feel like living free. It doesn't make fewer people die at the hands of the government. It just guarantees more insurrectionists like the rest of us wind up in cell block D for life or loving Big Brother in Room 101.
Not better, just a different strain of the same self-righteous, evil, cowardly assholes.
4% or 1 in 4?
“4.1%”
As in, in 2019, the state executed 24 people meaning we potentially executed 0.98(4)% innocent people. Now between the 150 murders in prison and 300 some suicides in prisons in 2019, we, I mean The State, almost certainly charged us to effectively subsidize the murder, I mean wrongful death, of a handful of innocent people or more. But sorting all that libertarian math out would be a hassle and it’s not like we, I mean The State, deliberately chose to execute them and then turned a blind eye to their guilt/innocence.
Prison is a fate worse than death for many. Why do so many mass shooters escape via suicide? Prison worse than death for them.
In the case of mass shootings, its probably close to 0%. Virtually always, the piece of garbage gets caught in the act with multiple direct witnesses. No doubt there.
I think it would be possible to expedite the process in cases of multiple homicide and not raise the probability of wrongful execution.
I think it would be possible to expedite the process in cases of multiple homicide and not raise the probability of wrongful execution.
I'm actually even more optimistic (or just objective/realistic). I think it's possible to separate the Grand Jury's decision to try from the Sentencing Jury's (or judge's) decision to execute such that even for cases of single or serial homicide you can effectively say "We didn't knowingly murder this innocent person any more than we knowingly murdered the innocent person who gets shanked to death in the shower." The data pretty clearly, IMO, indicates we're already there and, even if it's not, the numbers, on all the sides, are pretty easy to pull together.
That, to me, is the most laughable part about this whole stupidity. The anti-death penalty has pretty clearly been a bunch of self-righteous Karens for 3 decades now but they and their supporters still act like they're doing The Lord(they don't believe in)'s work.
Where DNA tests of archived evidence has been allowed there was no match much more frequently than that. The trial is a process that is incapable of determining truth.
Where DNA tests of archived evidence has been allowed there was no match much more frequently than that.
That's because of a magical conception of DNA both ways. The number of "Dead body, DNA, case closed" is probably a lot lower than your conception would require it to be.
The trial is a process that is incapable of determining truth.
So, uh, trust in Jesus, route all death penalty cases to The Shadow, or just go easier on everyone who says, "I didn't do it!"?
So let all perpetrators go free regardless of guilt? What other fair process is there? In the case of mass murder by shooting, the perp is virtually always caught in the act with multiple witnesses, if the pool of puke doesn’t commit suicide first. There is no doubt of guilt in the case of mass shooters. If anything, bring back death by hanging or firing squad with the puke receiving NO sedatives so the puke can feel the full fear and pain of death, unlike death by lethal injection which is too kind for mass murderers.
So why does take decades between the death sentence being issued to the time the U.S. Supreme Court is presented with a writ of certiorari arising from the conviction and/or sentence?
Dead men make no lawyer fees.
Because democrats. That’s why.
Which is typically the answer to these kinds of questions.
Everyone's entitled to a fair and speedy public trial. Followed by a speedy execution of the sentence if the guilt is obvious. Why drag it out?
I’m even ok with a three year appeals process. Which is reasonable compared to what we hav now. This gives some time to work out things like prosecutorial misconduct (like Mike Nifong) and any other considerations. But this 20-30 lag time form sentencing to execution is utter bullshit.
the government should not have the power or authority to take life.
That said, if you fucking idiots are going to cede that power to government, mass shooters seems like an acceptable bar for when they can apply it.
Capital punishment is pretty rare these days. So I don’t see a large problem here. Speed up the process, and ensure enough quality control so there are no executions of innocent people. Which doesn’t appear to be a problem. A least not currently.
the government should not have the power or authority to take life.
Is that you God or is that a supposed libertarian pretending to be God in defense of the government's moral virtues?
That said, if you fucking idiots are going to cede that power to government, mass shooters seems like an acceptable bar for when they can apply it.
Yeah, Reason can cram it with the "Making it easier to execute Nicholas Cruz will make FBP Jesus cry." bullshit. It's the same SJW crap that pretends borders are just figments of imagination (selectively), nobody in all of medical science for the last several hundred years has been able to definitively tell when a life starts, and vaccines are 100% safe and effective with no downsides.
No, Reason, the data's out there. Incarceration rates, exoneration rates, prison populations, executions, crimes committed in custody... do something other than the most insultingly bare minimum of disingenuous party-slanted appeals to emotion.
Execution should only apply to people who work for the government.
Mike Pence is a [Na]tional politician and what do you suppose the So[zi]alist party would do with that new Power of instant execution?
Ron Paul quipped once that he supported the death sentence as punishment for severe crimes but not with today's government. I have to agree with that assertion.
Pence is proposing a special category of death penalty procedures in which a defendant has been found guilty of multiple homicides. What will "politicians" do with that? Nothing. Because politicians don't convict people, and in order to convict someone of a mass killing, you actually need to have a mass killing; it's not a charge like "treason" or "conspiracy" that you can just make up.
Your cynicism has obviously robbed you of any remnant of rational thinking.
Like all those mass killings by fire extinguisher the left carries on about?
My rational thinking is that the left would never stop abusing that authority once it had been granted. Exactly what Ron Paul stated.
Was anybody convicted of even a single homicide for J6? No.
You just disproved your own argument.
It'll never happen.... Government would never do that..... /s
Your blind-faith in a perfect justice system is the only thing disproving my argument.
I have always had an issue with the idea that a person who is caught in the act needs a trial.
How does a juror or any member of the public reliably know the accused was caught in the act except by testimony at trial?
Many mass shooters have already excepted their own death, so it seems silly to assume that the death penalty would stop them. Let them rot behind bars for years, they deserve the punishment.
Ironic that the people who are angriest about this are from the demographic most likely to commit mass shootings. You think most mass shooters are gay, Marxist college professors in tweed jackets? No, they’re chuds who take selfies in their Oakleys, behind the wheel of their nonfunctional surrogate penis pickup trucks with “Molon Labe,” “Blue Lives” and Punisher stickers on the back window. You know — Reason’s core readership these days.
The vast majority of mass shootings are not politically motivated.
Furthermore, the category of "mass shootings" itself is biased, since the mass homicides that occur in minority populations have been segregated out into different categories.
And the reason for racial, ethnic, and political differences, to the extent that they exist, are the divisive messages from progressives and racists/bigots like you.
Show us an example.
I don't think that's its primary objective.
Absent knowing what the procedures are going to be, you have no way of knowing that. For example, "expedited death penalty" might simply mean that existing court dates and judicial reviews are scheduled rapidly within a few months of each other. Arguably, that would improve both the accuracy of decisions and justice, as those convicted would not linger for decades on death row.
Re the argument that 4% are innocent, they looked at raw data of 7,482 death sentence cases from 1973 to 2004 and a total of 107 of them were exonerated and let out of jail, or .014%. They then apply 'voodoo economics or statistics' or similar, to raise that number to 4% which is 286 times more than .014%.
107 of 7482 is 1.4%.
That's right. We should not make it easier to execute mass murderers. We shouldn't even punish them. We should instead cradle them and comfort them with lots of hugs and kisses and be understanding.
We should instead cradle them and comfort them with lots of hugs and kisses and be understanding.
Read them a bedtime story and tuck them in under a nice blanket of nitrogen.
I would love to join the discussion about the challenging issue of mass shootings as it seems to be evident that finding effective solutions is paramount. While people argue for harsher measures, like making it easier to execute mass shooters, it's essential to consider various perspectives and alternative approaches. To gain a more comprehensive understanding of the issue of school shootings, I found this site https://edubirdie.com/examples/school-shooting/ with the samples for students on the school shooting topic. I am 100% sure that we all have to discuss this topic widely to increase the awareness and prevent such situations in the future.
Libertarianism does certainly scale up.
The problem is that the leftists who have infected the ideology despise HOW it scales up.
It is their issue with every ideology that scales to an actually workable society-- all of these are broadly 'right wing'.
And every society that is unworkable is broadly leftist.
Every one.
FACT