Will this work to stop killing with guns?

I would again point out that most of the people who commit murder (directly, intentionally, or accidently through indesciminate gunfire) do not expect to be caught and don't believe they'll be convicted even if they are caught.

IF you add in an automatic death penalty, in today's society, very few jurors are likely to vote to convict for just that reason.

SO at best, we'll see more plea bargains and I don't think a major change in the current state of affairs.

The public is constantly being told, and trained, that the way to stop murders is to restrict or eliminate (if possible) private gun ownership.

I don't think that's the right answer.
 
dogtown tom said: "How about you show us data that proves the death penalty IS a deterrent?
This should be entertaining."

There is no data, precisely because, as I said, how can you measure crime that did not occur because the perp feared the death penalty?

5 Whiskey points out the failure of the system because the death penalty was delayed by appeals and claims that being in prison for life was a greater punishment than death, although I am hard-pressed to agree with the latter argument. As well, the death penalty did not apply to the tool used in the process and the system deteriorated due to the inefficient prosecution that succeeded in cases where it was found that the gulity verdict was an error.

If we target the death penalty to the tool used rather than the crime itself, I think that picture would change. I have been in favor of the death penalty for any crime committed with a gun, no matter if you're a victim cop or a citizen. If you rob someone, carjack, bank rob, break into a home and threaten the potential victim with a gun, once successfully prosecuted for the crime, you do not get extra years attached because you used a gun, you get the death penalty. I don't care if the "gun" used is a plastic water pistol. Use it in a crime and your ass is grass. If nothing else, as 44 AmP said, you won't see any repeat offenders and that will certainly be data that reveals crime reduction.
 
dogtown tom said:
How about you show us data that proves the death penalty IS a deterrent?
Click to expand...

If there is such data, I've never seen it. But the question of whether or not harsher penalties has an effect is an open one.

Project Exile, which enhanced sentences for crimes committed with firearms, appears to have had a deterrent effect. But there's a big gulf between extra years in prison and execution.
 
cdoc42 said:
118th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 584



To require face-to-face purchases of ammunition, to require licensing of ammunition dealers, and to require reporting regarding bulk purchases of ammunition.



IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 26, 2023

Mrs. Watson Coleman (for herself, Mr. Mfume, Mr. Carson, Mr. Quigley, Ms. Norton, Mr. Payne, Ms. Kamlager-Dove, Ms. Lee of California, Mr. Auchincloss, Ms. DelBene, Ms. Dean of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Ivey) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
Click to expand...
This is designed to cause businesses to fail, not to reduce crime.

How much percentage of ammunition sales is walk in traffic versus online or phone orders?

Do you think even the mighty Amazon.com would remain standing if this standard of face to face sales was applied to them?

This is an intentional crippling blow, with concrete shoes.

They want to drown ammunition sellers to punish all involved.
 
This is designed to cause businesses to fail, not to reduce crime.
Click to expand...

This is an intentional crippling blow, with concrete shoes.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, and I will agree that would fit the agenda of some people, but consider this, The proposal requires "face to face" sales, meaning you will have to go to the store, in person. This is bad for INTERNET sellers, but good for the "brick and mortar" stores. If law, it virtually guarantees retail sellers with physical storefront locations (who, btw, also pay LOCAL taxes) will have business.

So, even if it becomes reality, it is a boon to some, and a bane to others.

And a costly irritation for the consumer, of course.

Won't do squat about reducing crime, but I doubt that was the intent of those proposing it. It LOOKS like it will do something, and I think that's their intent.
 
I have noted is that when the death penalty is carried out, there is no record anywhere of a repeat offender....
Click to expand...

Those who serve life in prison are not repeat offenders either.

I'm not opposed to the death penalty. There are many cases where it is justified. But at the same time I'd not be opposed to abolishing it in favor of life sentences. In many cases a life sentence is a tougher punishment.

Let’s change it to read “ If you commit a crime with a gun, you are executed within 48 hours”.
Click to expand...

You read in the news on a regular basis where someone has served long prison sentences for crimes they didn't commit. Just a couple of months ago 3 local men in their 50's were released from prison after serving 20+ years of a life sentence for murder.

Turns out the victim was playing Russian Roulette and killed himself. The other 3 were present in the home and a crooked cop ignored witness statements backing up the Russian Roulette version.

An execution, especially a quick one, doesn't allow you the chance to correct mistakes. These things happen too often for me to be a big proponent of capital punishment.

If there are multiple credible witnesses, video, or other undisputable evidence and if
 
Thanks Tom Servo for making that easy to find.

After a quick read over I think this bill is a dog whistle.

Their buddies back home will give the sponsor and co sponsors attention when they hear about this.

They are spending our tax money to conduct and build useless legislation that will never pass.

They belong with the bureaucratic alien life forms from hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy.

Maybe they are teaching some inexperienced legislators how to fill out and file paperwork.

At least then the correct forms will get filled out when they decide to make a committee to decide whether or not to make a committee to decide whether or not to make a committee to decide whether or not to make....
 
Last edited:
jmr40 said:
Those who serve life in prison are not repeat offenders either.
Click to expand...

Oh really? You've never heard of a lifer who killed another inmate in prison? Or who killed a guard? Or, worse yet, escaped and in the process killed someone on the outside?

D
 
Or, worse yet, escaped and in the process killed someone on the outside?
Click to expand...

I remember one case where a "lifer" escaped, but didn't harm anyone on the outside....Brutal murderer, killed 3 teens camping, one stabbed 57 times, another 17 times...manhunt in the woods took most of the summer...

He was caught, shot and wounded by a Game Warden (buckshot) tried and convicted given life...but the poor fellow had been crippled by the "violence of his capture" and was confined to a wheelchair....

So, they put him in a min-security prison down state....a few months later, he went over the wall one dark night... (apparently no where near as crippled as he convinced people he was...)

His escape was big news. They did find him, three days later. Found him in a wooded area a few miles from the prison. Well, the found his body...anyway...according to the news, he had been shot 37 times, by "at least" three different caliber weapons...
Cops never did have any suspects....:rolleyes:

That guy never hurt anyone, ever again....
 
For a failure to correctly prosecute the true criminal and subject him/her to either the death penalty or life in prison, the cost of that failure should fall upon the prosecuting attorney and his/her staff. "It's not about justice; it's about winning" should carry a price.
Doctors have been sued for decades for professional failure; it's time the public got the same assurance from attorneys.

The death penalty for carrying or using a gun or replica thereof in a crime, if that can be proven, carries little to no failure prosecution possibility. No gun - just jail until innocence can be proven through appeal. But the proof of the use of a gun, even just by its presence - the culprit is history. There will be throw-aways, no fingerprints because gloves were used, but if the authorities ever find you, your life ends in a jar.

There was a large multi-building sales outlet about 45 minutes from my home, that is now history. But there, a teacher with her child was accosted by a teenager with a gun who demanded her purse or he would kill both of them. The teenager won that one and escaped by eventually using the bus that brought any number of customers (and similar teens) to the outlets from New York. Today, that still negatively affects her life, so she has spent 35 years in that personal prison. If that should happen today, my vote would be to eliminate that kid from society permanently. Penalties for wrong decisions need to be prioritized.
 
cdoc42 For a failure to correctly prosecute the true criminal and subject him/her to either the death penalty or life in prison, the cost of that failure should fall upon the prosecuting attorney and his/her staff. "It's not about justice; it's about winning" should carry a price.
Doctors have been sued for decades for professional failure; it's time the public got the same assurance from attorneys.
Click to expand...
What a load of baloney.
Your ignorance of the law is only surpassed by your ignorance of how the judicial system works.
And let us know when a physician relies on a decision by a jury during his treatment of a patient.

Prosecuting/district or states attorneys are elected......don't like their job performance then vote them out.


The death penalty for carrying or using a gun or replica thereof in a crime, if that can be proven, carries little to no failure prosecution possibility. No gun - just jail until innocence can be proven through appeal. But the proof of the use of a gun, even just by its presence - the culprit is history. There will be throw-aways, no fingerprints because gloves were used, but if the authorities ever find you, your life ends in a jar.
Click to expand...
Worse than your understanding of our judicial system is your understanding of civil rights and the US Constitution.


There was a large multi-building sales outlet about 45 minutes from my home, that is now history. But there, a teacher with her child was accosted by a teenager with a gun who demanded her purse or he would kill both of them. The teenager won that one and escaped by eventually using the bus that brought any number of customers (and similar teens) to the outlets from New York. Today, that still negatively affects her life, so she has spent 35 years in that personal prison. If that should happen today, my vote would be to eliminate that kid from society permanently. Penalties for wrong decisions need to be prioritized.
Click to expand...
Your anecdote says nothing about whether the robber was caught, prosecuted or served time. Undoubtedly, there is a penalty for robbery in your state. If the robber escaped arrest, his "wrong decision" wasn't prioritized because he didn't face justice.
 
"A fair and speedy trial, followed by a fair and speedy hanging" was once the norm in this country. It was never fair, and it did send a lot of innocent men to the gallows. IT also sent the clear message that if caught, punishment was swift, sure, and permanent. Whether you actually committed the crime, or not..:eek:

We don't do that anymore, just as we don't do witch hunts and hang witches. We recognize that police don't always arrest the actual criminal, nor do prosecutors only convict those who actually did the deed. Mistakes happen. Abuse also still happens.

Here is the main flaw with any idea of "automatic death penalty for use of a gun", it will lead to an increase in shootings and murder resulting from them.

When the penalty for robbing someone with a gun, and not shooting them is the same as the penalty for doing it and shooting them (and that penalty is DEATH!) what do you think is going to happen??

I firmly believe that if the penalty for robbing someone and not killing them is the same as killing someone, there will be more people killed during robberies.

Completely leaving aside all the places where such an idea tramples on Constitutional rights and due process, its just a BAD IDEA because the real world result will be an increase in harm, overall.
 
@ dogtown tom:

In any situation where solutions are absent, opinions are offered, reviewed, and agreed to or rejected depending on the majority judgment of those in the conference.

Personal insults and casting aspersions are but a weak defense for the failure to offer an opinion on the subject at hand. More useful is an explanation by the disputant of the areas of discussion perceived to be misunderstood by a participant who presented the opinion.
 
cdoc42 @ dogtown tom:

In any situation where solutions are absent, opinions are offered, reviewed, and agreed to or rejected depending on the majority judgment of those in the conference.
Click to expand...
Ehhhh...... no they aren't.
Since Adam & Eve, there hasn't been a "solution" and never will be.
While "the majority" might agree with instant painful death for certain crimes, our Constitution and laws don't. You can sit there and dream of "majority judgment" and it is literally meaningless.

Personal insults and casting aspersions are but a weak defense for the failure to offer an opinion on the subject at hand. More useful is an explanation by the disputant of the areas of discussion perceived to be misunderstood by a participant who presented the opinion.
Click to expand...
In the time it took you to write this paragraph you could have been reading the Bill of Rights.

Do THAT and we can have a cogent discussion.;)
 
In any situation where solutions are absent, opinions are offered, reviewed, and agreed to or rejected depending on the majority judgment of those in the conference.
Click to expand...

While true, this also covers mob rule and situations where the "majority judgement" is to do what the strong man (man with the gun, or the gang) says to do so THEY don't get hurt. Mob rule and thug rule are still "majority decisions".

Also remember that straight democracy isn't the best possible system, either. Three wolves and a sheep reaching a "majority consensus" on what to eat for dinner isn't necessarily a good thing for the sheep.....
 
"For a failure to correctly prosecute the true criminal and subject him/her to either the death penalty or life in prison, the cost of that failure should fall upon the prosecuting attorney and his/her staff."

The prosecuting attorney and staff are do not bear the sole responsibility for success or failure.
 
"For a failure to correctly prosecute the true criminal and subject him/her to either the death penalty or life in prison, the cost of that failure should fall upon the prosecuting attorney and his/her staff."
Click to expand...

That SOUNDS wonderful! But, how do you square that with those times when the police do NOT catch the true criminal, or do, but don't discover enough evidence for a conviction. And, how about the role the JURY plays in whether or not someone gets convicted??

OR for that matter, the Judge....I'd bet we could save a lot of money if we simply did away with the entire court system and simply let the prosecutor (and or their staff) determine guilt or innocence and set the sentencing. Heck, we could even do away with those pesky legislators who make those inconvenient laws in the first place! :rolleyes:

Extreme solutions are just that, and like a tourniquet around the neck to stop a nosebleed, they will be effective, but the additional things they create are rather less than desirable.
IF the patient dies, well, you DID stop the bleeding....:rolleyes:
 
“That SOUNDS wonderful! But, how do you square that with those times when the police do NOT catch the true criminal, or do, but don't discover enough evidence for a conviction. And, how about the role the JURY plays in whether or not someone gets convicted??”

Isn’t it the responsibility of the prosecuting attorney, e.g, the D.A., to review the accumulated evidence surrounding the case to decide if it merits moving forward toward prosecution? The police gather evidence, but the attorneys decide on the quality thereof to move forward or make whatever recommendation is available under the circumstances. Now, a caveat exists, if the police manufacture the evidence which would exonerate the attorney and change the threat of prosecution to the police.
The role of the jury is unchanged. They should still be able to rely on the presentations of both sides of the legal profession to be an honest evaluation so they can establish an opinion of guilt or innocence.

“OR for that matter, the Judge....I'd bet we could save a lot of money if we simply did away with the entire court system and simply let the prosecutor (and or their staff) determine guilt or innocence and set the sentencing. Heck, we could even do away with those pesky legislators who make those inconvenient laws in the first place!”

I’m certain the point of my proposal was to not save money by dismantling the system. It was to be certain the D.A. or other prosecuting attorneys concentrate on establishing the truth to be certain any sentence as significant as death is not secondary to winning. The judge doesn’t present the evidence to influence the jury.
This is strictly the responsibility of the prosecuting attorney to be certain the weight of the evidence is enough to honestly carry the recommended sentence. For example, there should not be an option to allow for an escape from the death penalty by agreeing to a guilty plea. If the evidence shows a gun or any facsimile was used, that’s the penalty upon conviction because that would be the law (I propose).
This opinion should not be viewed from any perspective other than one coming from what may be an ordinary citizen assigned to duty as a juror, as opposed to the demand that one should support that position with proof of didactic expertise.
 
Just a little opinion here, before we look at all the different ways to control the uncontrollable, how about a better job at enforcing the laws on the books, a better job at seeing that punishment follows the law. I understand those who say punishment does not deter crime, but I also understand if the criminals are in prison they probably will not be committing crimes against the public. A revolving door at the courthouse does not deter crime either. This is one of the safest nations in the history of man to live, unless you happen to live in certain districts in misrun hellholes where there is NO deterrent for committing crime. Most of us live knowing that justice will be done, as we lose that, we will have no chance for society. Just look at those districts that have already lost that faith. We all know the solution, unfortunately, we also know it will have to be politicians to correct it, and THAT is where the problem lies. It is far easier to pass a law, such as that proposed, that makes the law abiding guilty of something, rather than to go after those who are committing crimes. Politicians know, criminals are dangerous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top