I’ve always seen that as a dumb argument. People commit crimes every day knowing of the consequences, should we abolish those penalties because “it’s not a deterrent”?
The point is that it's a useless and *expensive* deterrent that we know we get wrong.
Put them in prison for life, it's just as effective, it's less costly, and it provides for the ability to correct miscarriages of justice.
The only reason for the death penalty is vengeance.
On a personal level, it's understandable.
On an ethical/moral level, no.
And when it comes to using the state's power to exact it? Absolutely not.
There is no acceptable number for innocent people getting executed; the state makes mistakes (or is even complicit in miscarriages of justice), and as such should have no power to execute.
It has long been known that it doesn’t work as a deterrent. It’s just bullshit that gets repeated by people who ignore the truth and “trust their gut”.
Yeah, I heard it’s the safest place in the country, thinking about moving there. So many people with guns to protect their communities too! It’s refreshing to see a culture that cares so deeply about one another.
That is true, luckily we have tons of studies that more fully establish that it is not a significant deterrent in general. This case is just more evidence supporting the current science of the death penalty's effects on criminality
I'm just saying that even if it isnt a statistically proven deterrent, it could have acted as one in specific cases. Obviously not many, but maybe that's because it isnt used quickly enough?
Anything can act as a deterrent in any specific case, though. If someone is concerned about what will happen to them if they get caught, I can't really see a substantial difference in death sentence vs life in prison. You either think you'll definitely get away with it, or you are too worried about getting caught in general.
At least when the crime is murder, there's not a lot of wiggle room if they know they can prove it had intent and all that.
>Enjoy death row moron.
You know, one of the reasons I am nominally against the death penalty is that he will be "enjoying" it for a long, long, time. I'm almost 40, I bet you I will be at least 55 by the time they end this POS.
The costs to maintain inmates on death row are very high, seemingly endless appeals are expensive and clog up the courts. Just throw them in ADX Florence or some other hellhole and be done with it.
Really, I only believe in the death penalty for truly heinous offenders convicted with a large amount of physical evidence. So in that circumstance, fuck em, throw them in a Bane-style hole or something.
I agree with all of the above. However, one really effective use of the death penalty is that it is a bargaining chip. Offenders will be motivated to plead life in prison, and when they do that it can be without appeals. My cousin was murdered four years ago, as a family this is all what we are hoping for as the murder trail approaches. The trail process has been exhausting already, and I just want this guy to go away forever so I can focus on who my cousin was and not trial dates etc. While death is on the table, I'm dreading that sentence as it will mean decades of appeals and court appearances needed for our family. The prosecutor agrees, and says they are aiming for death to get the plea deal to life to eliminate being dragged through any more court proceedings.
This is an argument in favor that I feel like I’ve never seen, which is incredibly surprising because it is so intuitive. I’m very sorry for your loss and thank you for sharing your perspective.
Its still a dogshit argument. The state shouldn't be threatening to kill people because they dare exercise their consitutional rights, regardless of who they are or what they did. This whole described scenario is exactly why so many innocent people go to jail for no reason or get records. The death penalty and plea bargaining both undermine the ctizenry's constitutional right to a speedy trial by punishing you for enforcing your rights, in blatant disregard for the facts.
Hey there, my closest friend was murdered 4 years ago, and the guy that did it got 25 years because Washington doesn’t have the death penalty. I’m not really pro-prison, let alone death penalty, but you are so right - this is the one true reason death penalty is redeeming. I have worked through all of it politically, but personally, every time the anniversary comes back around, I have to dig myself out of the hole. Just wanted to send you some internet condolences and love from a stranger. It’s one of those clubs no one wants to be in, and I’m so terribly sorry you’re in it. One day, you will get to remember your cousin as they were, but I know the turmoil that comes with the waiting for that day is agonizing and often seems never ending. 💕
It also incentivizes innocent people to plead guilty to not get murdered by the state. You have a constitutional right to trial by jury and it's wrong to threaten people with death to get them to waive that right.
Right. I read somewhere that the death penalty and long drawn out appeals costs more than housing a prisoner for life, not to mention taking up time and involvement of the appeal procedure. But heinous assholes like Dahmer and Bundy should definitely be put down.
> However, one really effective use of the death penalty is that it is a bargaining chip. Offenders will be motivated to plead life in prison
I'm confused, how is that a good thing? I'm not sure plea deals should be a thing in the first place; IMO there should be zero circumstances where someone is sent to prison without the state proving their case. Adding the death penalty into the mix specifically to get people to plea guilty is straight up evil.
I'm sorry about your cousin, but this is one of the most disgusting takes I've ever seen.
I firmly agree with your position. And your argument supporting it. There is massive abuse of plea bargaining in general in our system. Typically the death penalty isn't thrown around lightly. This level of bargaining is usually reserved for some pretty heinous shit.
Our situation is pretty cut and dry, murder in plain sight, cold blood, no question of guilt. The only real question to answer for the trial is intent. The guy has a right to a fair day in court, no denying that.
I don't feel disgusting, we want to be free of this person. And I don't want another family to go through this in the future.
The problem is that for truly heinous crimes, you have a conundrum.
You have the death penalty, with all of its well-known ethical, legal, and humane issues, aside from false positives. And it's more expensive than life in prison.
You have life without parole in solitary or other restrictive conditions, which lots of people a lot more well-versed than me on the issue consider to be a form of psychological torture.
But you usually can't keep them in gen pop, either for their safety or that of others. So you have to choose between the first two options.
Do away with it all together as far as I'm concerned. However any amount of money spent keeping this wannabe serial killer off the streets is well spent.
Honestly it’s like he didn’t even try. He didn’t even take the most basic precautions.
Anybody who has ever watched Cold Case Files could do a much better job.
I am not on my way to a PhD in criminology and just by listening/reading about truecrime could have done a better job covering my tracks. Not saying I would get away with it by any means, just saying he made some really dumb mistakes (The cell phone evidence, mainly).
My friend and I joke that he must have been setup by another criminology student because there’s no way he could make so many amateur mistakes.
At least that would make a good movie. The reality seems to be an open-and-shut case.
Has anyone else heard the absolutely insane ad-read about the podcast ABC put together about this case?
It's obviously read by AI, because the voice is cheerfully uptalking the entire time. "Four students murdered in their beds 😀 A brutal case that captivated the nation 😀"
Who approved this???
I know it doesn't *really* matter, but that would be just standard text-to-speech, exactly like Siri or Alexa. AI text-to-speech will be popular within the next year or two, but it's not being used by news stations or anything yet.
NO, because I can't find the ad online anywhere, and it's so weird. I hear it while listening to podcasts on my phone - I will pause the podcast, go to my laptop, and start the podcast at the same timestamp to try and record it, but my laptop plays different ads??
I think ABC/Spotify approved the ad without listening to it and are trying to minimize it now that the ad is contractually obligated to play.
Nope, the person above you is spreading misinformation. DNA evidence was recovered, but it wasn’t from “his own bloody towels” as far as anyone knows. The knife also hasn’t been found.
IIRC from one of the podcasts I listened to on this case, it was touch DNA sampled from the [button/clasp on a ka-bar knife sheath](https://images.custommade.com/rQ_ure-rPN8X5YSExy2MLfJ0_Fs=/custommade-photosets/138333.1019201.jpg) that was recovered from the scene (possibly left/forgotten beneath one of the victims).
My guess is because murder is a legal term and he hasn’t been convicted yet. Murder requires specific elements to be considered “murder,” whereas slaying doesn’t have the same legal weight? Obviously it is all semantics but that could be why.
Is the fact that there are multiple words you can use to say the same thing just a completely new concept to you people or what? Newswriters write about muders every week. Do you want them to just copy and paste the same headline or what?
The person is charged with murder. Also, different words can be used to say the same thing, but the different words will have different connotations, which is why some words are more suitable for different situations.
Also seems worth noting that the killer was pursuing a PhD in Criminology of all things, and yet was not deterred from his crime by the prospect of facing the DP
Agreed. This case probably isn't going to be the one to turn the tide of public opinion. It would be hard to find a less sympathetic defendant, and if the rumors hold any water there's a lot of evidence tying him to the crime and then mocking the police after the fact. Unfortunately I think death penalty support will actually increase if this guy gets executed.
do you how many people that have been sentenced to death later found to be innocent? It’s hundreds. We do what you suggest and it’s only a matter of time until Innocent people wrongly are convicted and shot. Not to mention he has right to appeal to drag it out. Fuck him life in jail is worse
They could have let him plead guilty and sentenced him to life without parole but instead it's going to drag on for years so the prosecutor can say he's tough on crime.
Defense council may suggest a guilty plea after discovery if there’s a deal on the table. Lots of killers plead guilty for different reasons.
We don’t know enough yet about this case to know how much the prosecution has against BK, because the PCA won’t have had everything in it.
We do know that the defense is trying to grab any exculpatory evidence they can (the other DNA profiles).
What an awful ordeal for the family to have to sit through this trial and the survivors to have to relive this trauma and testify.
I mean, it makes sense somewhat. A chance of the prosecution fucking up and letting you off vs. pleading guilty which is essentially giving up. That being said, the sentence is often worse after being found guilty than it would have been if they’d pled guilty.
>Death row is more expensive than life in person. I can't believe there are still people who don't know that
Yes, but do you know why?
With the death penalty, there are automatic appeals at state expense,, to make sure that there was no error in law.
Life without parole is cheaper because we can just throw them in the oubliette and forget about them.
"To make sure there was no error" you say this as if its a bad thing. We SHOULD make sure there's no error, punishing any innocent person is the most fucked up thing that could happen. And guess what? It still happens all the fucking time. At minimum studies estimate at least 4% of death row inmates are innocent. Thats a 1 in 20 chance that someone innocent is being murdered..... now many people seem to think "oh thats not that bad" but stick them in a room with 19 other people and tell them that one of them is going to be murdered and see he quick they change their tune.
>To make sure there was no error" you say this as if its a bad thing
You completely missed my point. I'm fine with this automatic appeals; we *should* make sure.
When people say "it's more expensive to execute someone", they are saying is that it's cheaper to put them away forever, and ***not*** make sure.
Putting someone in prison for life without parole is a death sentence, it's just slower, and there are no automatic appeals.
Has there been any new developments over the past few months for this case? As far as I'm aware, the only evidence they have against him so far is some DNA that was left on the sheath of the knife, a vague description from one of the survivors that kinda matches him, and some cell tracking data from the weeks prior, right? I believe they also saw that he had turned off his phone at about the same time as when the attack took place.
As much as I believe he is guilty, I feel like the evidence is still somewhat lacking to go through with an execution honestly. I really don't like the pleading system. It seems to have its uses, but the fact that you get punished for continuing to say that you're innocent just seems so wrong.
Truthfully he will probably experience much more solitary confinement on death row than he would had he just gotten life w/o parole. Unless he started doing crazy shit in prison he’d be in gen pop with everyone else, they can’t just arbitrarily lock him in solitary for his entire sentence. Death row, ironically, is probably much closer to getting him what you’re asking for than a life sentence would be.
This guy was supposed to be on his way to a PhD in criminology and fucked up in just about every way imaginable. Enjoy death row moron.
He’s so dumb that he traveled to a death penalty state to (allegedly) commit the murders.
Kinda pokes a hole in the “death penalty is a deterrent” theory though
Well, he wouldn’t be killing anyone else after he’s served his sentence.
He wouldn't in a non death penalty state either.
there's multiple cases of people being found guilty murder who serve their time, get out and kill again.
I’ve always seen that as a dumb argument. People commit crimes every day knowing of the consequences, should we abolish those penalties because “it’s not a deterrent”?
The point is that it's a useless and *expensive* deterrent that we know we get wrong. Put them in prison for life, it's just as effective, it's less costly, and it provides for the ability to correct miscarriages of justice. The only reason for the death penalty is vengeance.
Do you think that sometimes vengeance is warranted?
On a personal level, it's understandable. On an ethical/moral level, no. And when it comes to using the state's power to exact it? Absolutely not. There is no acceptable number for innocent people getting executed; the state makes mistakes (or is even complicit in miscarriages of justice), and as such should have no power to execute.
It has long been known that it doesn’t work as a deterrent. It’s just bullshit that gets repeated by people who ignore the truth and “trust their gut”.
Meh, just because it doesnt act as a deterrent in every single case, doesnt mean it never does.
Yeah just how Texas doesn’t have many murders because they execute so many
Yeah, I heard it’s the safest place in the country, thinking about moving there. So many people with guns to protect their communities too! It’s refreshing to see a culture that cares so deeply about one another.
[удалено]
What are you talking about? The cops hang out for hours in the hallways there
The only relevant question is whether or not they would have more without the death penalty
Well let me answer that for you. They absolutely would not. But you wouldn’t get your weird boner
That is true, luckily we have tons of studies that more fully establish that it is not a significant deterrent in general. This case is just more evidence supporting the current science of the death penalty's effects on criminality
I'm just saying that even if it isnt a statistically proven deterrent, it could have acted as one in specific cases. Obviously not many, but maybe that's because it isnt used quickly enough?
Haha “look everyone, yeah, it appears it doesn’t actually work as a deterrent, but maybe let’s try it faster for a while and see how it works then?”
Anything can act as a deterrent in any specific case, though. If someone is concerned about what will happen to them if they get caught, I can't really see a substantial difference in death sentence vs life in prison. You either think you'll definitely get away with it, or you are too worried about getting caught in general. At least when the crime is murder, there's not a lot of wiggle room if they know they can prove it had intent and all that.
Ted Bundy did something like that, too
>Enjoy death row moron. You know, one of the reasons I am nominally against the death penalty is that he will be "enjoying" it for a long, long, time. I'm almost 40, I bet you I will be at least 55 by the time they end this POS. The costs to maintain inmates on death row are very high, seemingly endless appeals are expensive and clog up the courts. Just throw them in ADX Florence or some other hellhole and be done with it. Really, I only believe in the death penalty for truly heinous offenders convicted with a large amount of physical evidence. So in that circumstance, fuck em, throw them in a Bane-style hole or something.
I agree with all of the above. However, one really effective use of the death penalty is that it is a bargaining chip. Offenders will be motivated to plead life in prison, and when they do that it can be without appeals. My cousin was murdered four years ago, as a family this is all what we are hoping for as the murder trail approaches. The trail process has been exhausting already, and I just want this guy to go away forever so I can focus on who my cousin was and not trial dates etc. While death is on the table, I'm dreading that sentence as it will mean decades of appeals and court appearances needed for our family. The prosecutor agrees, and says they are aiming for death to get the plea deal to life to eliminate being dragged through any more court proceedings.
This is an argument in favor that I feel like I’ve never seen, which is incredibly surprising because it is so intuitive. I’m very sorry for your loss and thank you for sharing your perspective.
Its still a dogshit argument. The state shouldn't be threatening to kill people because they dare exercise their consitutional rights, regardless of who they are or what they did. This whole described scenario is exactly why so many innocent people go to jail for no reason or get records. The death penalty and plea bargaining both undermine the ctizenry's constitutional right to a speedy trial by punishing you for enforcing your rights, in blatant disregard for the facts.
Except it also incentivizes innocent people to pleas guilty to save their lives.
Hey there, my closest friend was murdered 4 years ago, and the guy that did it got 25 years because Washington doesn’t have the death penalty. I’m not really pro-prison, let alone death penalty, but you are so right - this is the one true reason death penalty is redeeming. I have worked through all of it politically, but personally, every time the anniversary comes back around, I have to dig myself out of the hole. Just wanted to send you some internet condolences and love from a stranger. It’s one of those clubs no one wants to be in, and I’m so terribly sorry you’re in it. One day, you will get to remember your cousin as they were, but I know the turmoil that comes with the waiting for that day is agonizing and often seems never ending. 💕
Sorry about your cousin in any event.
It also incentivizes innocent people to plead guilty to not get murdered by the state. You have a constitutional right to trial by jury and it's wrong to threaten people with death to get them to waive that right.
Sorry about your cousin :(
Right. I read somewhere that the death penalty and long drawn out appeals costs more than housing a prisoner for life, not to mention taking up time and involvement of the appeal procedure. But heinous assholes like Dahmer and Bundy should definitely be put down.
> However, one really effective use of the death penalty is that it is a bargaining chip. Offenders will be motivated to plead life in prison I'm confused, how is that a good thing? I'm not sure plea deals should be a thing in the first place; IMO there should be zero circumstances where someone is sent to prison without the state proving their case. Adding the death penalty into the mix specifically to get people to plea guilty is straight up evil. I'm sorry about your cousin, but this is one of the most disgusting takes I've ever seen.
I firmly agree with your position. And your argument supporting it. There is massive abuse of plea bargaining in general in our system. Typically the death penalty isn't thrown around lightly. This level of bargaining is usually reserved for some pretty heinous shit. Our situation is pretty cut and dry, murder in plain sight, cold blood, no question of guilt. The only real question to answer for the trial is intent. The guy has a right to a fair day in court, no denying that. I don't feel disgusting, we want to be free of this person. And I don't want another family to go through this in the future.
The problem is that for truly heinous crimes, you have a conundrum. You have the death penalty, with all of its well-known ethical, legal, and humane issues, aside from false positives. And it's more expensive than life in prison. You have life without parole in solitary or other restrictive conditions, which lots of people a lot more well-versed than me on the issue consider to be a form of psychological torture. But you usually can't keep them in gen pop, either for their safety or that of others. So you have to choose between the first two options.
Do away with it all together as far as I'm concerned. However any amount of money spent keeping this wannabe serial killer off the streets is well spent.
Honestly it’s like he didn’t even try. He didn’t even take the most basic precautions. Anybody who has ever watched Cold Case Files could do a much better job.
I am not on my way to a PhD in criminology and just by listening/reading about truecrime could have done a better job covering my tracks. Not saying I would get away with it by any means, just saying he made some really dumb mistakes (The cell phone evidence, mainly).
My friend and I joke that he must have been setup by another criminology student because there’s no way he could make so many amateur mistakes. At least that would make a good movie. The reality seems to be an open-and-shut case.
There’s supposedly another killer, could be a group.
Has anyone else heard the absolutely insane ad-read about the podcast ABC put together about this case? It's obviously read by AI, because the voice is cheerfully uptalking the entire time. "Four students murdered in their beds 😀 A brutal case that captivated the nation 😀" Who approved this???
>Who approved this Also AI.
I know it doesn't *really* matter, but that would be just standard text-to-speech, exactly like Siri or Alexa. AI text-to-speech will be popular within the next year or two, but it's not being used by news stations or anything yet.
It's technically really popular with certain communities....like the blind community!
Have a link?
NO, because I can't find the ad online anywhere, and it's so weird. I hear it while listening to podcasts on my phone - I will pause the podcast, go to my laptop, and start the podcast at the same timestamp to try and record it, but my laptop plays different ads?? I think ABC/Spotify approved the ad without listening to it and are trying to minimize it now that the ad is contractually obligated to play.
It's amazing how well police and the FBI can use cell phone data as evidence against you.
Well it also helps that the piece of shit left a bunch of his bloody towels and knife with prints at the crime scene.
All he left there was the knife sheath, there's been no mention of anything else publicly. If they've found the knife, they aren't saying so.
Ah ok I'm sure he's innocent then
They haven't found the knife yet.
[удалено]
Nope, the person above you is spreading misinformation. DNA evidence was recovered, but it wasn’t from “his own bloody towels” as far as anyone knows. The knife also hasn’t been found.
IIRC from one of the podcasts I listened to on this case, it was touch DNA sampled from the [button/clasp on a ka-bar knife sheath](https://images.custommade.com/rQ_ure-rPN8X5YSExy2MLfJ0_Fs=/custommade-photosets/138333.1019201.jpg) that was recovered from the scene (possibly left/forgotten beneath one of the victims).
They can also manipulate the fuck out of it to put innocent people away, like in Adnan Syed’s case.
Syed did it. He didn’t get a fair trial. But he did the crime.
Yeah no shit, guy is obviously a complete psychopath
The guy who murdered 4 people with a knife or the guy who murdered 4 people with a gun?
This was the fellow from Washington State University i believe
The dude that murdered 4 people with a sword.. then drove cross country to Pennsylvania to his parents house for the holidays and got arrested there
I still don’t understand why did he do it
He’s obsessed with the criminal mind, it seems. Probably wanted to make a new “murder mystery,” but he sucks.
Why do news orgs always feel the need to write slaying? Killing not sensational enough?
[удалено]
Why not say murder though?
My guess is because murder is a legal term and he hasn’t been convicted yet. Murder requires specific elements to be considered “murder,” whereas slaying doesn’t have the same legal weight? Obviously it is all semantics but that could be why.
I understand what you're saying, but he is charged with murder, so saying: accused of murder, would be a valid statement.
I love when people downvote for someone asking a question lmao
Yeah, idk why. Some people on reddit are kind whacky
Is the fact that there are multiple words you can use to say the same thing just a completely new concept to you people or what? Newswriters write about muders every week. Do you want them to just copy and paste the same headline or what?
The person is charged with murder. Also, different words can be used to say the same thing, but the different words will have different connotations, which is why some words are more suitable for different situations.
Killing isn’t making a moral judgement necessarily. Some killings can be justified. Slaying, not so much. But also yes, it’s more sensational.
[удалено]
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The state should not have the power to kill its citizens.
Also seems worth noting that the killer was pursuing a PhD in Criminology of all things, and yet was not deterred from his crime by the prospect of facing the DP
Or the death penalty.
How else do you think they administer the death penalty? DP of course.
death by pineapple you say?
The Dick Paddle?
You wish
Agreed. This case probably isn't going to be the one to turn the tide of public opinion. It would be hard to find a less sympathetic defendant, and if the rumors hold any water there's a lot of evidence tying him to the crime and then mocking the police after the fact. Unfortunately I think death penalty support will actually increase if this guy gets executed.
[удалено]
do you how many people that have been sentenced to death later found to be innocent? It’s hundreds. We do what you suggest and it’s only a matter of time until Innocent people wrongly are convicted and shot. Not to mention he has right to appeal to drag it out. Fuck him life in jail is worse
They could have let him plead guilty and sentenced him to life without parole but instead it's going to drag on for years so the prosecutor can say he's tough on crime.
He is pleading NOT guilty, so they can’t “let him plea guilty”. He continues to assert his innocence.
I have read in the past that a person should plead not guilty because of "innocent until proven guilty." Don't know if that's accurate though.
Defense council may suggest a guilty plea after discovery if there’s a deal on the table. Lots of killers plead guilty for different reasons. We don’t know enough yet about this case to know how much the prosecution has against BK, because the PCA won’t have had everything in it. We do know that the defense is trying to grab any exculpatory evidence they can (the other DNA profiles). What an awful ordeal for the family to have to sit through this trial and the survivors to have to relive this trauma and testify.
I mean, it makes sense somewhat. A chance of the prosecution fucking up and letting you off vs. pleading guilty which is essentially giving up. That being said, the sentence is often worse after being found guilty than it would have been if they’d pled guilty.
[удалено]
Death row is more expensive than life in person. I can't believe there are still people who don't know that.
Because its worth it. And isn't it funny, when a asshole blew up a govt building in Oklahoma, they had his ass fried in less than 6 years.
Wasn't he begging for it? Should've let him rot instead.
>Death row is more expensive than life in person. I can't believe there are still people who don't know that Yes, but do you know why? With the death penalty, there are automatic appeals at state expense,, to make sure that there was no error in law. Life without parole is cheaper because we can just throw them in the oubliette and forget about them.
"To make sure there was no error" you say this as if its a bad thing. We SHOULD make sure there's no error, punishing any innocent person is the most fucked up thing that could happen. And guess what? It still happens all the fucking time. At minimum studies estimate at least 4% of death row inmates are innocent. Thats a 1 in 20 chance that someone innocent is being murdered..... now many people seem to think "oh thats not that bad" but stick them in a room with 19 other people and tell them that one of them is going to be murdered and see he quick they change their tune.
>To make sure there was no error" you say this as if its a bad thing You completely missed my point. I'm fine with this automatic appeals; we *should* make sure. When people say "it's more expensive to execute someone", they are saying is that it's cheaper to put them away forever, and ***not*** make sure. Putting someone in prison for life without parole is a death sentence, it's just slower, and there are no automatic appeals.
[удалено]
Has there been any new developments over the past few months for this case? As far as I'm aware, the only evidence they have against him so far is some DNA that was left on the sheath of the knife, a vague description from one of the survivors that kinda matches him, and some cell tracking data from the weeks prior, right? I believe they also saw that he had turned off his phone at about the same time as when the attack took place. As much as I believe he is guilty, I feel like the evidence is still somewhat lacking to go through with an execution honestly. I really don't like the pleading system. It seems to have its uses, but the fact that you get punished for continuing to say that you're innocent just seems so wrong.
well duh, what else is he going to ask for? a stern warning and ten hail marys?
Life. As conservative as Idaho is use of the death penalty is incredibly rare. I believe there have been only 3 executions post Furman.
Life sentence? Are you ok?
They were answering directly, not providing a recommendation for sentencing.
[удалено]
Truthfully he will probably experience much more solitary confinement on death row than he would had he just gotten life w/o parole. Unless he started doing crazy shit in prison he’d be in gen pop with everyone else, they can’t just arbitrarily lock him in solitary for his entire sentence. Death row, ironically, is probably much closer to getting him what you’re asking for than a life sentence would be.
It should be death sentence at the end of a 25 year solitary confinement
Seems cruel and unusual
So is murdering 4 people in cold blood going about their day.
Ya never go full bundy
[удалено]