Thread by @SumElseThing1

I'm not against the death penalty in principle, but why is the process of executing someone so prolonged and arbitrary that this story is plausible?

https://twitter.com/harrylitman/status/1333457267060994048

Saving capital punishment for low-frequency high depravity crimes seems like exactly the wrong approach.

Just when the blinding moral outrage and political pressure is highest, the state grabs the first likely-seeming suspect and nails them hard.

Then, this procedure leading to a terrible track record of false convictions, they set an intricate structure of appeals and reviews on top of the death penalty, converting it to a mostly symbolic sentence that evaluates to extra-expensive life in prison in the majority of cases.

I would much rather see something like immediate, no-appeals execution of repeat offenders of lesser crimes.

"Three-strikes-and-you're-dead" for armed robbery seems like a promising policy - Actually rid society of high-probability incorrigible predators quickly and cheaply.

Let the mildly retarded and/or mentally ill spree killers and family annihilators just have regular prison sentences: Even if you have the right guy, they'll rarely do it again.