Should a white supremacist child-murderer be worthy of the death penalty?

[zinfamous]

You guys that are doing this are all about the whataboutism.

The Boston Marathon Bomber is an open and shut case.

If there is any sort of debate on the case - which at the time of penalty I think there should be a thorough audit - that is completely up for discussion topic.

The point being, all of you that keep arguing "WHAT IF THEYRE INNOCENT!"??!?!" are basically arguing "well, if we can prove they are 100% guilty then I'm fine with it"

The reality is that you are all just partisan bickering - simply because right-leaning folks are for it you ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY MUST ARGUE AGAINST IT AT ALL COSTS

no, not at all.

you just refuse to ask the uncomfortable and necessary questions which can never be removed from the actual practice of a state determining death of the convicted. You see, conviction is the issue. It's the first part. I think it frightens you, honestly, which is why you avoid accepting this on a basic, necessary level.

I find that most conservatives are just lazy and due to the terror of accidentally learning something new that might confuse their convictions, they just avoid difficult topics altogether, or just redefine them into simple little packages that can be easily digested with simple yes/no answers and little consideration.

 

[zinfamous]

But it doesn't need to.

It does need to be that expensive, because this is how appeal works. Otherwise, you surrender all pretense towards any concern over wrongfully convicting innocent people.

That's not what you're saying, are you?

 

[cytg111]

Personally I'd rather just end my life than spend 20 years in prison all to be told "my bad, yo".

It's a silly and stupid argument. The question isn't if an innocent person should be put to death.

Wtf

 

[zinfamous]

So just so I understand and to make my point absolutely clear - You are fine with capital punishment if it fits the crime (e.g. cereal rapist/murderer of underage children, etc..) - and that it has been clearly proven. Confessed. 100% No question. No argument from the murderer. Correct?

For me: no, I'm not OK with it in that situation either. It isn't a deterrent, so what's the point? It's more expensive, so what's the point? bloodthirsty revenge doesn't really do anything in the end for anyone...not that I'm going to judge what the family/victims of such people should feel or how they respond. ...I get that, but this is one of those situations where you just can't have it both ways on a situational basis. Laws don't work that way.

But again, the moral and ethical problem with state-sanctioned murder falls apart at the first theoretical approach of the issues, so I don't see much reason to get into a hypothetical that is fundamentally impossible to achieve. (It's like believing in a USA where all guns can be magically zapped out of existence--what's the point of discussing that because it will never happen?)

 

[zinfamous]

As risk goes would people be comfortable using a product that has such an error rate given the consequences? I doubt it.

...isn't that error rate statistically safer than the rate of injuring yourself with your own gun (in cases of households with guns)?

 

[fskimospy]

I find it funny that conservatives think the state can’t be trusted to do anything right except kill its citizens.

 

[K1052]

...isn't that error rate statistically safer than the rate of injuring yourself with your own gun (in cases of households with guns)?

Considering the 400M guns in the country probably substantially more safe to juggle loaded Glocks than risk a capital case as a defendant.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

For me: no, I'm not OK with it in that situation either. It isn't a deterrent, so what's the point? It's more expensive, so what's the point? bloodthirsty revenge doesn't really do anything in the end for anyone...not that I'm going to judge what the family/victims of such people should feel or how they respond. ...I get that, but this is one of those situations where you just can't have it both ways on a situational basis. Laws don't work that way.

But again, the moral and ethical problem with state-sanctioned murder falls apart at the first theoretical approach of the issues, so I don't see much reason to get into a hypothetical that is fundamentally impossible to achieve. (It's like believing in a USA where all guns can be magically zapped out of existence--what's the point of discussing that because it will never happen?)

Again, it's only more expensive because of the bearuacracy. Court costs. Attorney fees. Appeals.

The problem is "rotting in prison" is far from a punishment for some people. For me? Again, I'd rather die than sit in prison. Completely 100% serious. I also hold myself to higher morals than your average person. If you're a piece of shit that wants to kill, torture, rape, etc... other humans, then it's probably a cake-walk.

Honestly for some people I just don't see the punishment. Particular, for the parasite idiots of our country. They have no remorse. No regrets. They don't give two shits after you put them behind bars. That tells you it's not a solution to the problem.

I get the argument that it's not ethical persay (death penalty), so I guess my question is "What is the solution?" and if the perceived answer is "life in prison" then you would clearly be out of touch with reality. It doesn't do anything, it doesn't solve anything, it doesn't cut any costs. It's overall a cake-walk to the end of life for deplorable people.

 

[brycejones]

But it doesn't need to.

Given the error rate in our already expensive process I am not willing to make changes intended solely to drive down the costs of implementation.

Btw I say this as someone who used to be ardent supporter of the death penalty and goes every other year to a parole board meeting to keep the killer of my aunt in prison.

 

[brycejones]

cereal rapist

Who rapes Cheerios?

 

[brycejones]

1 in 70 was determined to be innocent. Who knows how many more who weren't exonerated should have been. I'm not ok with the risk that many innocent people could be put to death by the state.

Boeing 737max safer than the death penalty just doesn’t have a good ring to it.

 

[nakedfrog]

Again, it's only more expensive because of the bearuacracy. Court costs. Attorney fees. Appeals.

The problem is "rotting in prison" is far from a punishment for some people. For me? Again, I'd rather die than sit in prison. Completely 100% serious. I also hold myself to higher morals than your average person. If you're a piece of shit that wants to kill, torture, rape, etc... other humans, then it's probably a cake-walk.

Honestly for some people I just don't see the punishment. Particular, for the parasite idiots of our country. They have no remorse. No regrets. They don't give two shits after you put them behind bars. That tells you it's not a solution to the problem.

I get the argument that it's not ethical persay (death penalty), so I guess my question is "What is the solution?" and if the perceived answer is "life in prison" then you would clearly be out of touch with reality. It doesn't do anything, it doesn't solve anything, it doesn't cut any costs. It's overall a cake-walk to the end of life for deplorable people.

It does though. It keeps them out of society, so they can't perform further harm.
Execution doesn't bring justice, it just makes some people feel a little better briefly. After that, you're back to the trauma of having been raped, or having a loved one killed, execution isn't going to magically erase that.

 

[BoomerD]

It costs more to execute him.

No it doesn't...it costs more for all the bleeding heart appeals.

 

[Jhhnn]

Why should the taxpayers be on the hook to house, feed, protect, and provide medical care for this piece of shit when a couple of .40 rounds applied properly is faster and cheaper?

Kill them, kill them all...and STOP worrying about whether some asshole who terrorized and murdered a family feels a bit of discomfort when he's executed.

Duterte wants you to come lead death squads.

 

[Jhhnn]

No it doesn't...it costs more for all the bleeding heart appeals.

So what? It's that way for good reason & won't change unless the fascists take over.

Reality. Deal with it.

 

[Bitek]

Progressives are happy to punch a Nazi but when coming across actual murdering racists like Dylan Roof (shot up a black church) or Timothy McVeigh, then they get all misty eyed about how they deserve to live and how "that's a worse fate than death" for them.

Thankfully we fought WW2 when progressives were better men, else they'd have let Hitler just have Europe.

So you're one of those pro-big government conservatives?

You trust the gov to get it right 100% of the time?

You trust the gov to have power of killing it's own citizens?

I don't.

He ain't going anywhere locked up, but giving the feds the hangman's noose doesn't make me feel safer.

 

[Bitek]

No it doesn't...it costs more for all the bleeding heart appeals.

Goddamn that Constitution and system of laws!
The Man brings Freedom by summary executions!

 

[brycejones]

No it doesn't...it costs more for all the bleeding heart appeals.

Ensuring the state actually has its shit together is not bleeding heart.

 

[Bitek]

Again, it's only more expensive because of the bearuacracy. Court costs. Attorney fees. Appeals.

The problem is "rotting in prison" is far from a punishment for some people. For me? Again, I'd rather die than sit in prison. Completely 100% serious. I also hold myself to higher morals than your average person. If you're a piece of shit that wants to kill, torture, rape, etc... other humans, then it's probably a cake-walk.

Honestly for some people I just don't see the punishment. Particular, for the parasite idiots of our country. They have no remorse. No regrets. They don't give two shits after you put them behind bars. That tells you it's not a solution to the problem.

I get the argument that it's not ethical persay (death penalty), so I guess my question is "What is the solution?" and if the perceived answer is "life in prison" then you would clearly be out of touch with reality. It doesn't do anything, it doesn't solve anything, it doesn't cut any costs. It's overall a cake-walk to the end of life for deplorable people.

You make an argument that boils down to "I prefer Vengeance over Justice," then go on go say you "hold [your]self to higher morals than your average person."

... apparently meant that to be taken seriously...


Fuck, I just can't. It's Friday and I'm going to go find a beer.

 

[Jaskalas]

I don't say that Omar and Warren are specifically defending this man, but rather that I don't understand a carte blanche ban on capital punishment. Some crimes are sufficiently heinous as to justly merit it.

I am not aware as to the strength of the evidence in this case. Therefore I feel I am unfit to judge whether the Death Penalty should apply. As absolute guilt beyond all doubt is a requirement for my supporting it. And if the Government wants to enact the Death Penalty without such strict requirements then I will oppose such action.

Life in prison is bad enough if the man was somehow innocent of the charges. Killing an innocent person should be guarded against AT ALL COST.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

You make an argument that boils down to "I prefer Vengeance over Justice," then go on go say you "hold [your]self to higher morals than your average person."

... apparently meant that to be taken seriously...


Fuck, I just can't. It's Friday and I'm going to go find a beer.

If it's a cakewalk and overall not considered a punishment for wrong-doing, then why do you call it "justice" ?

The number of times I've seen people arrested with a "don't give a fuck" attitude" tells you that the system doesn't work. Punishments are meant to deter behavior - FIN. It's not meant to be a response, it's strictly meant to be something that deters particular behaviors. If it doesn't deter the behavior, then it fails in achieving the goal. You must find something different that does deter the behavior.

I already found beers. If you lived local I would buy you one

And yes, I do hold myself to higher standards. If there is one thing I ensure of in life it's that I do not impede other people in life. Seems pretty simple, no?

 

[Sunburn74]

The basic problems with the death penalty stem from an erroneous assumption that death is the worst thing we can do to a person and from the fact that the application of the death penalty in the modern age is ripe with flaws as those applying it are often some of the most flawed individuals in society.

I think it's hard to argue that no crimes deserve death (there probably are on a theoretical level a crime that warrants specifically and exactly death, just like there are crimes that warrant specific and exact amounts of fines) but I myself find it hard to actually come up with such a crime. Essentially most of the crimes people ascribe as needing death probably deserve worse and most of the crimes that lead to the actual death sentence in the modern age probably deserve less.

 

[Moonbeam]

https://kfor.com/2014/01/10/white-supremacist-convicted-murderer-wants-death-sentence-changed/

This guy murdered a family of 3 including an 8 year old girl in service to the goal of establishing a white ethno-state. William Barr thinks it is just that he die for this, and I'm inclined to agree. Is the man's guilt substantially in doubt?

Democrats like Ilhan Omar, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders (among others) think otherwise.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1154516409512280071

https://twitter.com/x/status/1154436814146609154

If you (1) can't blame racism or some other prejudicial animosity nor (2) validly claim that he's not guilty, then on what basis should this man be permitted to keep his life after depriving an 8 year old girl and her parents of theirs?

I don't say that Omar and Warren are specifically defending this man, but rather that I don't understand a carte blanche ban on capital punishment. Some crimes are sufficiently heinous as to justly merit it.

Why do we get a pass on doing the forbidden? If it is wrong to murder then it is wrong to take any life. The duty of society is to make sure those who have murdered people never have a chance to do it again. If you murder a killer you rob the universe of any chance he might have to repent at a genuine level. Don't you think it would be a sin to kill a soul that might be redeemed? Who are you to rob the universe of a chance to find balance or to rob it of one more soul that might find real love? For what? Because of your ego outrage?

And what about all those Black people who forgave the white guy who killed their family members in church and found to capacity to forgive. Are you going to steal that from the universe too? I can understand your moral outrage, but I can't see how you can call yourself a Christian. What do you imagine Jesus was doing, dying willingly on the cross, other than to show you that resurrection follows crucifixion? What is crucifixion if not the dying of the ego to rage and the rebirth of God's infinite love within you.

If it is beyond your grasp the one thing you can do is not to feed or attach yourself to hate. You may hate but you don't have to believe you are right in it. Let he who is free of it cast the first stone.

 

[TheVrolok]

The number of times I've seen people arrested with a "don't give a fuck" attitude" tells you that the system doesn't work. Punishments are meant to deter behavior - FIN. It's not meant to be a response, it's strictly meant to be something that deters particular behaviors. If it doesn't deter the behavior, then it fails in achieving the goal. You must find something different that does deter the behavior.

This is horribly anecdotal and illogical. I assume you think a deterrent must be 100% effective?

 

[Sunburn74]

This is horribly anecdotal and illogical. I assume you think a deterrent must be 100% effective?

Yeah but even the best mathematical models that look at how effective the death penalty is on addressing crime and which can identify even minor improvements in risk reduction suggest no noticeable effect across society. Criminals just don't factor it in.

Abortion policy on the other hand has probably had the largest impact on crime actually something that people on both the left and the right hate to admit.