Vaguely aware of who he is. Is he the type of republican that “accepts” gay people or the type to openly denigrate them?

It’s like you don’t even care about kindergarteners and pre-K kids. Have you no shame? Have you no soul?!

Damn OpenAI.

Again a hypothetical is exactly intended to avoid this minutia. What originally started this was when I said there are people that deserve to die. This would necessarily avoid the question of actual guilt vs wrongfully convicted. You’ve seemingly not balked at that while continuing to run with your “real world” shtick that has no bearing on the underlying ethical question. And again it’s perfectly fine if you don’t think there is anyone that deserves to die no matter what evil they get up to. The problem is that you will continue to flail and bang your head against the wall if you refuse to understand there are other people in the world who think differently.

So you can’t entertain a hypothetical?

The hypothetical doesn’t need to exist in reality. It’s part of the thought process. It’s not meant to be an argument for a realistic applicant of the death penalty. Again… I oppose the death penalty.

Now imagine a society (this can be fictitious) without the resources to house criminals indefinitely. How do you manage using resources, to the detriment of the innocent, to house criminals with a life sentence?

You’re too focused on the US. Those are broader hypotheticals.

No. I’m saying unintended effects and the impact to the rest of society needs to be considered. Solitary confinement has been equated with torture. Would you be fine effectively torturing people you want kept alive? If the cost of incarceration left the rest of the society in danger due to lack of resources, would you shoulder that burden?

That’s what prisons are for.

What about the other people in the prisons? Is solitary sufficient for you? What about the psychological harm that can do? Does a life sentence of torture work? What amount of resources should we direct to keeping a dangerous person locked up alive and not psychologically tortured? Are there other government functions you’d be fine losing at the cost of housing them? In the US we can manage that, but other countries maybe not.

Protecting people from further harm. Punishment instead of rehabilitation. It’s fine if you wouldn’t, but understand plenty of people feel differently. Surely you’re onboard with some punishment or rehabilitation. There are those who would go further.

As a matter of practice, I oppose the death penalty. But I acknowledge there are people that deserve to die.

By certain people DO deserve death. The problem is making the absolute determination of guilt. Courts and governments get that wrong all the time. For that reason I’m against the death penalty.

There are dozens of us!

(/s and I don’t have Xitter anymore)

I just googled your symptoms and it says you have network connectivity problems.

Watch the documentary Rubber and you’ll hate them too.

That’s not how DNA works. It’s not like a vague description of a person so they round up a bunch of perps for a line up. They would get an exact match on DNA before arresting someone.

Easy. You have 11. Eliminate the women because they would know it’s male based on DNA. Now we’re at 6. 4 were verifiably in different states at the time of the crime. 2 left. Stake them out for a bit and gather some garbage likely to have DNA. 1 sample is a perfect match.

Alternatively, those last 2 sample could both not match and then they just continue their investigation.

The common clay of the new west.

Because while you drone on about the nuance from the cops side of things, you completely ignore the nuance from the victims side. There’s plenty of body cam video of cops blatantly violating laws and rights and facing no consequences despite literally doing it on camera that they had to put on and turn on themselves. That stems from either the audacity to flagrantly be a bastard as the phrase implies or that that mentality is so ingrained in them and/or the culture that they forgot to not fuck up on camera.

You’re completely dismissive of the movement behind the saying ACAB because you ignore nuance too. When you understand why you do that, maybe you’ll understand why that phrase is used.

And before you try to throw that back on me, remember the side you’re defending chose their job and were entrusted with a responsibility to serve and protect. The rest of us didn’t “choose” to be the chattel under their boots.

And the whole point of a catch phrase or saying such as ACAB is to boil a statement down past the nuance. I’m sure most people are willing to acknowledge that there are good cops. That’s not entirely the point. When you point out good cops, we can point out similar instances of a good cop being driven off the force for not falling in line or the “good cop” covering for a bad one.

Did you also rail against the phrase “black lives matter” because it didn’t address the nuance that other lives matter as well? Cause that misses the point. When a non-black person was killed, people weren’t trotting out that phrase. Similarly if there’s a good interaction with a cop, people aren’t going to start screaming ACAB. Those phrases generally get brought out when there’s a bad cop or black people are killed.

To be fair there were only like 3 different answers in that list of 8. Most were some form of reduced sentencing/punishment and quicker result/trial/process.