Deputy Travis Junior said:

---

I'm not going to lose sleep over this dude's death, but what the hell are we doing? What does it solve when we kill a 67 year old dementia patient who probably can't even remember the crime he committed just shy of 40 years ago? There's no deterrence or punishment here, it's just naked bloodlust.

---

The death penalty isn't designed to deter the person who received it. (If you meant something else, you misspoke). He won't be killing anyone by operation of his death. Deterrence is for those who MIGHT otherwise commit the crime. The selective enforcement and rare nature of the DP make it less likely to deter, however, that's not an argument against the DP itself.

As far as bloodlust, that's idiotic. How do you deal with someone who has no incentive to NOT kill others, including other inmates and prison staff? It is far more dangerous to leave someone in prison, virtually knowing they WILL kill if given the opportunity.

AgGrad99 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

I'm against the death penalty because of the taxpayer cost. Cheaper to just let them rot.

Also, crime happened in 1986? Too long - gotta speed it up.

---

Tell me more....

I always assumed a shot (syringe or bullet), was a lot cheaper than paying for someone with a life sentence, for decades upon decades.

Is that not the case?

---

1. Capital murder cases are extremely expensive to try. There is a much higher bar for the state to prove the guilt.
2. There are automatic appeals for capital murder convictions, those are expensive as well.
3. Then, you have the liberal groups that will appeal the appeal, more money
4. Death row inmates are housed in special much more secure prison units, again more cost

I would be thrilled if they could fast track the appeals and get everything done in 2 years. Set the execution date at 2 years from the date of conviction, and then be done with it. That would ensure justice is served and reduce costs.

What bothers me so much are those who fully admit to everything, and STILL sit for decades. Fort Hood shooter is a screaming example. Committed the act in 2009, fully admitted everything a couple years later and is still waiting on death row. For what?? He should have been taken to a utility room and drowned in a bucket within the hour of his confession. I just don't f'ing get it.

I used to fully support the death penalty but over time have softened due primarily to the risk of executing an innocent person and secondarily, the cost. That said, I still think you need it in selected cases like Timothy McVeigh where there was zero doubt on guilt of a heinous crime.

"Since 1973, 200 former death-row prisoners have been exonerated of all charges related to the wrongful convictions that had put them on death row".

This is admittedly a biased source but there are without a doubt a number of people that have been cleared based on DNA evidence and evidence of overzealous prosecutors that either withheld evidence or flat out lied to try to get a conviction in many cases to help advance their political career.
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/policy/innocence

PS Having served on a jury and seeing how most people arrived at their verdict helped convince me that we frequently don't get the right verdict in trials. Way too many people wanted to decid based on feels and emotion without considering the evidence in question. Others just wanted to get out of there asap and went with the strongest willed individual in the jury room.

Idaho is another state doing the firing squad.

The defendant in Utah may request method of execution. Some, like this one, likely depend on the shock value of the method to sway public opinion against capital punishment. In fact, firing squad is probably the least painful method of execution. Until then, Utah corrections staff have promised to keep him comfortable.
It doesn't get more humane than that.

Eliminatus said:

---

What bothers me so much are those who fully admit to everything, and STILL sit for decades. Fort Hood shooter is a screaming example. Committed the act in 2009, fully admitted everything a couple years later and is still waiting on death row. For what?? He should have been taken to a utility room and drowned in a bucket within the hour of his confession. I just don't f'ing get it.

---

Agree. If someone clearly did it and admits to doing it, just get it over with.

AgGrad99 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

I'm against the death penalty because of the taxpayer cost. Cheaper to just let them rot.

Also, crime happened in 1986? Too long - gotta speed it up.

---

Tell me more....

I always assumed a shot (syringe or bullet), was a lot cheaper than paying for someone with a life sentence, for decades upon decades.

Is that not the case?

---

You wouldn't be able to tell until you pull the trigger. That gives you some piece of mind when you aim that , there's a 20% chance it's not you. However, once gun goes boom, they'll know right away who had live round and who didn't.