Do you believe in the death penalty?

In some cases yes but only those where there is no doubt about the guilt of the person. ZERO cases based on circumstantial evidence.
Sorry to all the bleeding hearts, but some people NEED killing.

@OwnerOfMany There's no such thing as zero doubt.

@BlueVeins Just for the record, you are wrong about the cost.

@BlueVeins If a man you have known for 25 years is nailing your wife behind your back and he gets pissed because she won't leave you for him, bursts through your door in front of you, pulls a gun and permanently parts her pigtails...you saw it, you know him, and just for the hell of it say you were recording with your cellphone when he came in and it is all on video, there is no doubt he did it...the only question to you would be why.

@OwnerOfMany My source if Forbes. What's yours?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2014/05/01/considering-the-death-penalty-your-tax-dollars-at-work/#17d2d0fe664b

@OwnerOfMany Video editing/glitches exist, and it's very plausible for a husband to kill his cheating spouse and blame it on her little manwhore friend. There is doubt, however unreasonable.

@BlueVeins The actual cost IS less, the trials are bloated and it would not be as costly as it is if they carried out the sentences instead of letting them SIT on death row for 20 years.

@BlueVeins A man robs a bank, shoots the teller, all on video, 16 people see it, before he can clear the door some little old lady wraps a 30 pocket book around his head dropping him right there.
On video, 16 witnesses, never left the scene, no doubt.

@OwnerOfMany The legal proceedings are expensive and time-consuming because determining who lives and who dies is an extremely important and delicate task that should never be taken lightly. You're asking for the government to be [i]more[/i] scrupulous about sorting the good from the bad using a [i]less[/i] robust procedure.

@OwnerOfMany In order to believe that there's no doubt, you would have to believe that either human sensory perception is perfect -- which it verifiably is not -- or that video footage always accurately reflects past events -- which it verifiably does not. That's not much doubt, but it's still doubt, so by your suggestion, he wouldn't get the needle.

@BlueVeins "Determining" who dies or who needs to die is not that damn delicate. There are crimes that are committed that should forfeit someones right to waste air. If the investigators do their job and the evidence is irrefutable, done.
As soon as the bitch admitted it, Susan Smith should have been strapped in the back seat of a car and rolled into a pond just like she did her two kids.

@OwnerOfMany [quote]There are crimes that are committed that should forfeit someones right to waste air.[/quote] Catch 22, though -- in order to determine that the crime actually took place, you've got to listen to the defendent's claims (which you refer to as a waste of air).

[quote]If the investigators do their job and the evidence is irrefutable, done.[/quote] That's pretty much the burden of proof as it is, and tons of people still get falsely convicted.

[quote]As soon as the bitch admitted it, Susan Smith should have been strapped in the back seat of a car and rolled into a pond just like she did her two kids.
[/quote] False confessions exist though. Again, you're advocating a policy that would get innocent people killed.

@BlueVeins What are you talking about? I just said, the guy shoots the teller, 16 witnesses, video, HE NEVER LEFT THE BANK, caught in hand on the spot, how in the hell can there be " A " doubt?

@OwnerOfMany Maybe one of the 16 bystanders actually shot the teller, the security camera glitched, the accused shooter fled out of fear, and the bystanders mistook him for the shooter as he did so. That's a doubt. Pretty damn unlikely, but it is technically possible.

@BlueVeins And that line of shit would not hold up in court, not with 16 witnesses seeing him pull the trigger. You have reached the point of absurdity. You are arguing for the sake of arguing, nothing else.

@OwnerOfMany You seem to be implying that we should only consider reasonable doubts. Correct?

@BlueVeins Does the phrase "Beyond a reasonable doubt." ring familiar? You can come up with some argument to damn near anything. But a bank with 6 cameras on 3 feeds, 16 witnesses who are not related or in a group, and the shooter never leaving the scene? To argue that is absurd.
Todays court system is shit anyway, it's not about guilt or innocence, it's about money. Wait a while...your education is coming.

@OwnerOfMany Quit grasping at straws, bro. That's already supposed to be the burden of proof, but people ignore it because they get too convinced that what's in front of them is true. So in order for your proposal to work, you'd have to get people to magically adhere to the policy we already have.

@BlueVeins Like I said, wait a while.

@OwnerOfMany lol, that's a cute tactic. I'll see you when you grow up.