So little is lost by removing it. which doesn’t require a change to the constitution.

“So I will sit back and watch”

Ah, right, so you already get to think of people being murdered by the state, so you’ll just enjoy the show, you vile human being.

What does that have to do with you?

Lawyers like to argue – it is fun.

FFS.

Since you are both advocating for a change from the existing status (death penalty is available and in use) – it is up to you guys to make the change. You have the burden, not me.

Good luck to you both.

I am not desperate, because unless you and your friends change the law in 31 states and the Federal congress OR change the constitution, the default status is what IS right now (the death penalty is available and in use).

I am ambivalent myself, because Minnesota has already decided not to use the death penalty – so if you succeed in getting rid of it in the other 31 states, that would be fine with me. There are not very many federal executions (only 3 since 2001) so if you manage to get rid of the death penalty federally that would be fine with me.

So I will sit back and watch and see if you succeed.

I would get involved if there is a movement to amend the constitution and would oppose such an amendment. And I do like to blog about the death penalty (and the 2nd amendment). Lawyers like to argue – it is fun.

True. However, executions are also rare.

Only 20 in the USA in 2016.

I feel you will say that even one execution is to many.

I say even one escape and subsequent murder is to many.

Imprisonment removes the threat posed by the criminal to society. In the case of a life term, the effect is permanent.

” In the case of a life term, the effect is permanent.”

Actually it isn’t. There are over a hundred murders attributed to people given life in prison. Most killed were prison guards or prisoners, but there are cases of parole, and escape too.

Prison isn’t society. Escapes are rare. Murders by escapees rarer still.

Thing is, he was not able to do so for some time.

And, having escaped, they were already looking for him, reducing his window of opportunity.

And having escaped to be caught or have evidence found of another similar crime, it’s a pretty simple (therefore speedy and cheap) trial.

Not forgetting anyone who he knew would know him and would be aware of who the nutbag was, making chances of survival better.

So as far as deterrent goes, it is still pretty effective. “Deter” as in “Was hindered” or “Was unable to rampage as long”.

And, lets face it, if someone escapes prison to kill someone immediately and randomly, there was no possible deterrent there to begin with, was there?

PS ask suicide bombers what they felt when they went out to the (obviously unsuccessful) attempt. They felt calm, that all their problems were going to end, that the road, short as it was, was clear and untroubling.

If they were going to have to live another 40 years with their legs blown off in the attempt, and this was the almost inevitable end result of such attempts, you’d get almost no bugger doing it.

I can’t see any reason why this sort of nut is any different in their drive to commit the act than any random nutcase murderer.

Actually it isn’t. ”

Actually, it is. Of course, we could change the law later or we could find they were innocent, or merely that the evidence was not sufficient for the severe sentence. Then again they could die in prison before any of that, or we could be invaded by aliens, or annihilated by a ELE asteroid strike, or anything else.

But, if the sentence is to be jailed until the end of their natural life (Peter Sutcliffe, IIRC, is the last one to be sentenced to that in the UK, and he’s not getting out), then the ability of the purported criminal to do their crime or any other again is ended permanently.

What ISN’T ended permanently is any way of undoing a miscarriage of justice.

“but there are cases of parole, and escape too”

And cases of people sentenced to jail where, when DNA evidence was then made available, was absolute proof they were innocent.

NOTE: DNA should be used only to clear, never convict, since DNA can be left around with any number of myriad reasons, and that the soundness of the proof it gives is massively over-hyped. You will DNA match much closer to people in your town, all of whom could have done it, and almost nothing in common with some random Australian Aborigine who has the excuse of thousands of miles to say they weren’t there, so the base “one-in-a-million” chance, based on “match with any random other human in the world” is a lot smaller when you’re selecting from a much less varied smaller genetic sample of humanity. Therefore if the DNA DOESN’T match, you’re pretty damn certain they’re innocent, what with all the ways an innocent person’s DNA could be found (shook hands? DNA transferred).