Moral justification for the execution of criminals of war?

[Thumpalumpacus]

... until you're the innocent marched to the death chamber, am I right? I doubt you'd be so blithe at that point.

That seems pretty unlikely.

I think it's quote likely that if the shoe were on your foot you wouldn't be so sanguine about the killing of a few hundred innocents a year in the name of justice.

Do you mean to say you'd stoically accept your fate as determined by the state for the commission of a crime you didn't commit? That you'd go gently into that good night? Or maybe you mean that because you're not black or hispanic that the odds of you being brought up on false charges are smaller? Or maybe you mean that you just don't care either way no matter your personal risk?

I didn't say "what the hell, kill a few innocents."  I said that in many areas of social function, mistakes might lead to death.  I see no reason why the judiciary should be held to an unobtainable standard of perfection, when a jackass can drive a car with his phone in front of his face, mow down my entire family, and be out of prison in a decade.

And yet here you are arguing that these examples of civilian irresponsibility are a great reason why we should allow judges to be equally irresponsible when it comes to the lives of defendants. It's almost like you're not thinking this through. The judiciary has a higher standard because it is an arm not only of the government, but the arm of the government that metes out justice. Let me repeat that last word: justice.

When you can explain how executing a wrongly-convicted prisoner is just, you could probably pen a best-seller. Me, I think you're gonna have a hard time squaring that circle.

But: when you reply to this post, you will need to address that point. To reiterate: When you can explain how executing a wrongly-convicted prisoner is just

Yes, you have to go through due process.  But in my opinion the current system that takes sometimes decades is morally deficient.  I think by the time someone actually dies, they are quite likely a different person than whoever shared their fingerprints 40 years ago, and holding them accountable for such a distant crime seems wrong to me.  In fact, I'd rather see a statute of limitations for execution-- seal the case in at most 5 years, or drop it.

Great, there's a starting point. Now, the obvious question is how willing you are to limit appeals in order to hit your timeline. What's your standards there?

Yes, well this is another issue-- ideally, you'd like the process to last longer than any given administration.  If the Retardicans decide that abortion is worth the death sentence, I'd hope the appeals would last at least long enough for a sane secular government to consider the case.

You seem unaware that federal judges have lifetime appointments that have nothing to do with the current governing administration.

I remember when there were protests on Wall Street.  I was hoping that a few of those most responsible for the bubble burst might end up hanging from a tree.  Instead they walked away with billions of dollars of taxpayer money.  In my opinion, anyone who takes actions that should reasonably be expected to do harm to Americans should be tried for treason.

You should look up the legal definition of treason -- or do better work than this horseshit in trying to change the minds of others about it.

As it stands, your argument is very unconvincing, and strikes me as being based on personal feelings. I'm glad your "morality", such as it is, is in the minority. People who would kill at the drop of a hat have no business being near our system of justice; the fact that you don't understand that says a lot more about you than it does about our system of justice.