Quote Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet View Post
I’m pro death penalty for the most heinous of crimes, but I don’t think that has anything to do with prison overcrowding. Only a small amount of people are sentenced to death. I hear you on the legal challenges, but not sure what alternative there is. People are afforded those legal challenges for good reason, and we as a society should be absolutely certain that irreversible action of a death sentence is justified.

I want to be clear that when I say alternatives to incarceration for non-violent drug offenders I mean just that. We need an alternative to prison and the only thing in scope is truly non-violent drug offenses. We must enforce laws and prosecute criminals in other crimes, especially violence. Community outreach programs are not a substitute for law enforcement, but they are a great tool to make positive changes.
Indefinite legal challenges are the problem, involving tens of millions of dollars to the taxpayers to re-litigate decided issues over and over again, regardless of merit. I believe that to be a travesty of justice. 2,331 people on death row as of 01/2023, at a $60k-$70k cost per inmate? That is money which could be better spent.

I like the idea of community intervention, in theory. In reality, is is the responsibility of the family to bear the cost of wayward individuals, or society as a whole to subsidize their misadventures? If it's the latter, then make subsidized rehabilitation a one time drug diversion program with a suspended sentence. If they fail, stay on incarceration is lifted and they're left to clean up behind bars. Community still pays for it, but the individual also faces just punishment for their lack of personal responsibility.

Going back to the 100 pound woman vs the 300 pound man, you are correct there is no sure fire guarantee that she will prevail, criminals get the advantage of the element of surprise, and criminals have weapons too. A firearm and adequate training gives her the best chance to defend herself in suv a situation though. Why would you want to deny a person the best tool for the job to protect themselves? I just don’t understand that line of thought. Citizens that choose to take accountability for their own defense and those of others should be empowered to do so, not hindered by our own government.
There is no reason to believe that three hundred pound man wouldn't have just as easy a time using a firearm as that hundred pound woman, only he has the element of surprise and likely premeditation. In that scenario, woman suffers and the man now has two guns. In the scenario where she has adequate time to defend herself and her assailant isn't equally as armed, yeah being armed is a benefit. However, reality shows us that far more unequal situations occur where an assailant causes harm by nature of being armed.

I would that anyone be able to protect themselves from evil, but the scenario outside of a home where barriers can allow adequate time to arm and prepare, personal armaments are FAR less likely to be overwhelming benefit. Universal right to home protection, absolutely. Open carry with a license, by non criminal people? Sure. Imo, open carry is more likely to deter an assailant. Unlicensed concealed carry, no.

Using my above rational, if we have an open carry society, I would want criminals who arm and harm to face sentences that are so heavy handed that others will think twice about doing it. For those mentally unstable people, a universal background check, red flag system, and waiting period for first time buyers I believe would deter their armament.