I've wanted to know one thing from you and you've been unable to supply it. Why kill more people? This is what you want, it is 100% the fact of the matter. I asked why. You say consequence, but IT'S NOT CONSEQUENCE!
You can keep quoting definition if you want, you're misapplying it and I know why you are. You're trying to put forth this emotionless face because you want to make it seem that you're doing this for different reasons, but it's clear what you want. You say "it makes sense if you have an open mind", no it only makes sense if you have a closed mind. Saying life is the most precious thing and we'll prove it by taking life, that's ridiculous.
Now maybe here's a thing you need an open life for. If you really believe that life is the most precious thing, then you'll do your best to protect it no matter what. Even the life of someone who has killed another because all life is precious and what we value most...right? But you've rationalized that down, you make the murderer into something less than human so you can justify taking their life. This is fact, this is what's going down. You've decided that you think these people should die and you're going to construct a system in which these people will be killed. You've dehumanized them as justification for your action. I want to know the underlying reason, it's not consequence because it doesn't exist as consequence. You keep saying you're talking about a different death penalty system, one that is more expansive, quicker, and magically more precise (I'm not sure the next one follows the first two). So you want the system to change, that means what you call for is not consequence but a punishment based on a set of morals and opinions held by you. Why do you want your version of the death penalty installed as a consequence? It's not consequence now, people aren't sent to death row for what you'd send people to death row for. People aren't executed as quickly as you'd execute them, the system costs more money than you would spend. You want to change all this, so obviously what you call for doesn't exist currently as a consequence. So why do you want to kill more people? What is the fundamental driving this, I say revenge because your rhetoric says revenge. They deserve to die is revenge. We value life so we'll show it by taking it is revenge. That is fact, those are revenge statements. Those are vindictive, you're getting back at someone based on an action they have previously taken. You say no, so without using the word "consequence", why do you want more people dead?
I say you want to kill innocents because that is the consequence of what you call for. That is the real world outcome of what you say. Illinois found over HALF the people in its death row were innocent (I put that there cause you said the 20% in my analogy wasn't right, I demonstrated with MEASURED FACT that it was in fact low, not high).
This is what you want to do, you want to take out the checks on the death penalty. People on death row get appeal, the process takes time. You want to get rid of that, no appeals and not a lot of time. That way you can make this killing machine faster, more efficient. How are you going to do that without taking in more innocent life? There have been advancements in identification technology, DNA evidence, etc. But none of that is full proof. What if there is no DNA evidence, still going to kill someone? When you make something faster, you will breed in oversights necessarily. This is the consequence of speeding up a trial. If you make things faster, you will get innocents and you will get more innocents than you would if you hadn't rushed. By reducing a criminals ability to fight their death sentence and by killing them faster, you WILL kill more innocent people. That's reality, that's how what you call for will work itself out. Someone with such a high "value" for human life will take more innocent life than we take now just to get at the life of a criminal. Does that sound rational to you? Does that sound ethical to you? You respect and value life so much that you will kill innocents to make sure the guilty die. That's the real thing which is going down here, that's reality. Innocent people will die so you can kill that human you think isn't human.
You've never rationalized that. You've never proven that. All you talk about is making the death penalty more expansive and quicker. You don't want repeat offenders (I don't know how longer jail sentencing didn't come in as an option for you, but whatever), so you want them dead. Things we never went after with the death penalty before, you want the death penalty used. Checks we had in place to give people the ability to fight for their lives against the State, you want removed. You want to increase the base and the slope. The consequence for doing that is more innocent lives being swept up into it. You say "no" without offering a shred of proof as to how this would be the case; it's just not how your death penalty is going to work. But that's baloney, plain and simple it's nothing more than baloney. The dynamics you are wishing to enact can not work together and make less innocent people caught up in the death penalty. You want more crimes to end in the death of the criminal, you don't want to spend a lot of money killing that criminal (wasn't human life valuable?). You will 100%, absolutely, without a doubt get a lot more innocent people killed by enacting this. There's no argument, what you want to do has the innate consequence of decreasing oversight. And without that, you're gonna kill more innocent people.
If you want to quit pretending about discussing "ethics" and want to talk about reality, come back. Otherwise, continue in your delusions of grandeur. But there's nothing spectacular about what you're doing, there's nothing good that will come of it. There's no consequence which can be found in the death penalty, only revenge built upon the lives of the innocent. That's measured reality.
