Not crimes, "terrorism." Crimes have to be proven in court, but terrorism can be denied due process, so it doesnt have to be proven, just "designated."
Protest at a Tesla dealer? Terrorism, no trial. Write a post encouraging people to protest? Terrorism, no trial. Complain about ignoring SCOTUS rulings? Terrorism, no trial. Registered Democrat? The Democratuc party has been declared a Terrorist organization for supporting protests, all Democrats are Terrorists, no trial.
They're just getting started. It's going to get a lot worse.
This is the first practice run of many, leading up to the 2028 election. By the time we get there, they will have totally ignored so many SCOTUS rulings (and lower courts) that defying the 22nd amendment will be expected, and accepted.
Looks like Tim Apple's $1 million contribution to HitlerPig's unregulated Inauguration fund paid off.
No Democrat should vote for a single Nazi bill, ever.
Several years back, there was a case of two knuckleheads who were in prison together, and when they got out, they planned a home invasion.
They broke in, beat the crap out of the husband/father, and chained him to a pole in the basement. Then they tied up the mom and two teenage daughters. They terrorized them all night, raped the younger daughter. In the morning, one asshole took the mother to the bank, and forced her to withdraw a bunch of money from the teller. The mother tried to attract the teller's attention with her eyes and facial expressions, but the teller didn't pick up on it.
He took her home, and tied her up again. Then they poured gasoline around the house, including pouring it across one of the girls, tied to her bed. Then they set it on fire.
The husband, smelling the smoke, finally broke loose, crawled out a window and ran next door to call the police. The cops got there quick (really nice neighborhood), and arrived just as the two idiots burst out the front door of the burning house. They were apprehended on the front lawn, smelling like gasoline, and immediately started blaming the entire debacle on each other, as if it made a difference.
The mother and two daughters died in the fire. At least one of the girls had broken loose, but died of smoke inhalation before reaching the steps to downstairs. The husband survived his injuries, and positively identified both dickheads. There was absolutely no doubt that these guys were 1000% guilty. There was no way that some slick defense lawyer was going to be able to make any kind of case for another suspect, a coerced confession, a sketchy identification, poor police procedure, etc.
This happened in Connecticut, which didn't have the death penalty. At the time, I spoke with numerous Connecticut residents who were ALL willing to make an exception for these two scumbags.
This is the kind of evidence I'm talking about. Sure, many crimes have some ambiguity, and wouldn't be eligible for the death penalty under my suggested protocols, but that wasnt the case with these guys. They were caught on the scene, and immediately confessed to the crime, as their victims were dying in the fire, and then were identified by the one surviving victim. This wasn't just beyond reasonable doubt, this was beyond ANY sort of doubt. These guys earned their death penalties, and it's a shame they can't be carried out.
You're pointing out all the reasons where a prosecution could go wrong and potentially condemn an innocent person, and I agree with ALL of them. But occasionally there is the combination of a particularly heinous murder AND the lack of any possible doubt at all, and these are the crimes I'm suggesting should be eligible for the death penalty. They are very rare, and like I first said, would probably only happen a handful of times in an entire decade.
I'm confused, Ive been kicked in the head a few times, as you can imagine.
Circumstantial evidence can clear the bar, I'm talking about standard that is higher than that. That has to be necessary if were going to take a life.
Very succinct. You said in a few words, what I always need a few paragraphs to say. Nice job.
That's a good tip, I'll give that a try.
I almost agree, but there are always those people who have earned their death penalty.
I think we use it way too often, and often for terrible reasons, like to pump up the law & order cred for some scummy DA with ambitions for higher office. But sometimes there is a crime so bad, that the only appropriate response is to remove them from ALL society. Even prisoners shouldnt have to abide their presence among them.
So i want to preseve it for only the most heinous forms of murder, like serial or mass murder, torture murders, and definitely the deliberate murder of children, but only when the evidence is so overwhelming that there is no doubt of guilt. They must be caught in the act, confess everything, with lots of corroborating evidence and testimony, etc. It should NEVER be applied for anything other than murder. Not for rape, treason, etc.
Even with all of that, it should only be used a handful of times in a decade, and only after a full review of the evidence and the case.
But just some cop testifying that he claims he saw one guy kill another? Nuh-uh. People shouldn't be getting death penalties based on stuff like police or jail-house snitch testimony, or "circumstantial" evidence. Or any police testimony, for that matter. They are proven, enthusiastic liars.
Given what we know about the murder of this CSKfP (Corporate Serial Killer for Profit), Luigi and Death Penalty shouldn't be used in the same sentence
Treason always comes first.