I'm deliberately keeping those examples out of my statement because those are touchier. Murdered people? That depends on circumstance. Wantonly raping children, nah, but if it's a "peeing in a bush at night 1000yds from school" type conviction I don't care.

It's weird for me, because there was a time when my only friends were murderers. To say that murderers are some of the nicest people I've ever met, on the whole, is a rather bizarre statement.

If I was locked up again and had the choice who to hang with, it would be murderers all the way.

I'm still in contact with many of them on a day-to-day basis.

> but if it's a "peeing in a bush at night 1000yds from school" type conviction I don't care.

That depends on what the job is, isn’t it? If it would give them more access to children that would be cause for concern.

Same way about bank robbery. Previous bank robbery would give me a much bigger pause if we work on bank security or adjecent fields for example.

Why would that be a cause for concern?

I think they mean the likelihood of a person committing a crime for a second time is higher when they have already committed it once.

They might pee in a bush again?

Oops, i misread the word. I read it as “peeping” as in they were caught trying to see children as they dress or undress. But yeah reading the word correctly now what I wrote doesn’t make much sense.

>Previous bank robbery would give me a much bigger pause if we work on bank security or adjecent fields for example

As they say, it takes a thief to catch a thief. Who would be able to protect the bank better than a former bank robber?

At some point we should either give them life imprisonment or accept that if they are free to go then they paid their debt and need to be reintegrated (obviously if they did sex offences against minors then don’t put them in jobs with high contact to minors).

No death penalty if nitrogen hypoxia were the method?

I’m against death penalty because:

1. False conviction rate is unacceptably high

2. It’s financially similarly burdensome to do life imprisonment as death penalty

3. Presence of death penalty doesn’t seem to impact homicide rates

I am all for putting some people in prison and never letting them out (because of high chance of recidivism).

These are bad reasons to be against the death penalty. Even if the state were always perfectly correct, the right to life is the most basic of human rights and the state should not deprive anyone, including criminals, of human rights.

Jail already deprives people of human rights. I'm still against the death penalty though.

Is there any standard of evidence that could merit the death penalty?

Should people be able to choose it over a life sentence?

IMHO nitrogen would significantly bring that cost down

The problem of cost is not the drugs, but the lengthy process to ensure that it's not a false conviction, and even with the current lengthy process it's still really not good enough.

Should people be able to choose it? In general I'm all for assisted suicide, but I worry that it could be done coercively.

> At some point we should either give them life imprisonment or accept that if they are free to go then they paid their debt and need to be reintegrated (obviously if they did sex offences against minors then don’t put them in jobs with high contact to minors).

If lasting penalties are right for sex offenses against minors, why are they wrong for everything else?