calodo2003
Flaming Full Member
McVeigh?The death penalty is one of the few things I am an absolutist on. It is always wrong, in every case, every time.
McVeigh?The death penalty is one of the few things I am an absolutist on. It is always wrong, in every case, every time.
Nope. Making a single exception is to admit that the government has a right to take the life of its citizens. The government should not have this right, and it is shameful we have given it to them.McVeigh?
Respekt.Nope. Making a single exception is to admit that the government has a right to take the life of its citizens. The government should not have this right, and it is shameful we have given it to them.
I'm pragmatic too, and think convicts should be given an option to choose between life without parole or a bullet to the head, but the federal government and state governments have forfeited any moral right to conduct the death penalty given numerous miscarriages of justice. Given a perfect government that wouldn't make any mistakes, sure, Old Yeller him.Really? I had heard otherwise. Maybe I heard wrong. I wasn’t watching the proceedings, only listening to it on XM, so I can’t speak to how the cameras were being used.
I’m pragmatic on the death penalty. This event deserved it. Many don’t.
Resting bitch face.I've watched a lot of trials (although admittedly I didn't watch much of this one since it was so long) over the last couple of years and I'll tell you what, that judge was the coldest towards the jury at the end that I've seen.
Face like thunder reading the verdict and barely a word of thanks.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Strongly disagree, those three are heroes. The death penalty is an abomination, not just morally, but legally. Why should we ever give government authority to take the life of a citizen? How many hundreds of innocent people have been murdered over the years in the name of vengeance, because execution is not justice, at least not in a civilized society.I already made a point before on the topic: I believe in the death penalty for the very few unredeemable cases out there (serial killers, terrorists and mass shooters). Ever since I've read about Japan's 9 criteria for eligibility to the death penalty (which is rarely dished, still), I strongly believe that we can follow a very rational lead there. And if the perpetrator somehow managed to fail the balance of the 9 criteria, then there is nothing else to say.
Economically speaking, I say it's far more expensive to feed a remorseless criminal for a lifetime than buying rope and lumber to get rid of that same criminal. Anyway, feck those 3 jurors in the Parkland shooter case whoever they are.
Confused somewhat as to how it’s the ‘government’s authority’ when it would be the jury’s decision & the government apparatus carries it out.Strongly disagree, those three are heroes. The death penalty is an abomination, not just morally, but legally. Why should we ever give government authority to take the life of a citizen? How many hundreds of innocent people have been murdered over the years in the name of vengeance, because execution is not justice, at least not in a civilized society.
At the most basic level it is their authority as the laws that permit any punishment are made, and enforced, by the government.Confused somewhat as to how it’s the ‘government’s authority’ when it would be the jury’s decision & the government apparatus carries it out.
Ironically many who thinking killing someone for killing someone would (rightly) consider it barbaric to chop someone's hand off for theft or if the analogous punishment for rape was the norm (now that I think of it they might be for that one).Strongly disagree, those three are heroes. The death penalty is an abomination, not just morally, but legally. Why should we ever give government authority to take the life of a citizen? How many hundreds of innocent people have been murdered over the years in the name of vengeance, because execution is not justice, at least not in a civilized society.
This is why, as cold as it may sound, the victims of crime and/or their families should have no say in the sentencing of a convicted criminal. I sure as hell know I would want blood if someone killed my dog, let alone my wife or family members. If we want to be a civilized society that believes in justice and the rule of law we must uphold those principles impartially. If we want to be a society of vengeance and barbarism that is a choice we can make, but we should at least be honest about it.Ironically many who thinking killing someone for killing someone would (rightly) consider it barbaric to chop someone's hand off for theft or if the analogous punishment for rape was the norm (now that I think of it they might be for that one).
Many confuse justice with revenge.
I totally agree - there is zero reason that the victims of crime or their families should be rational about such things. Revenge is a personal concept and you have to judge if you want to take that action and if so are you prepared to suffer the legal consequences if you get caught. Society should be above that.This is why, as cold as it may sound, the victims of crime and/or their families should have no say in the sentencing of a convicted criminal. I sure as hell know I would want blood if someone killed my dog, let alone my wife or family members. If we want to be a civilized society that believes in justice and the rule of law we must uphold those principles impartially. If we want to be a society of vengeance and barbarism that is a choice we can make, but we should at least be honest about it.
Agreed nobody has the right to kill anyone even if they have done despicable things. I've always wondered if the people involved in sentencing a person to death feel any remorse after. That's gotta cause some emotional trauma down the line.Strongly disagree, those three are heroes. The death penalty is an abomination, not just morally, but legally. Why should we ever give government authority to take the life of a citizen? How many hundreds of innocent people have been murdered over the years in the name of vengeance, because execution is not justice, at least not in a civilized society.
I think most people could have slept comfortably knowing that they decided Nikolas Cruise deserved the death penalty.Agreed nobody has the right to kill anyone even if they have done despicable things. I've always wondered if the people involved in sentencing a person to death feel any remorse after. That's gotta cause some emotional trauma down the line.
Unfortunately, I think you are right, I do believe most Americans would have slept comfortably had he been sentenced to death. But then again we are a country obsessed with death and violence. A country that has no "respect" for life, unless it is unborn. Killing is wrong, whether it is murder in the streets or a needle in the arm in a prison basement. The only reason for execution is vengeance. There is no Justice to be found in killing, at least not in a civilized society. Then again, I think calling our society civilized may be a bridge to far. We are hateful, vengeful, spiteful, and bigoted people. It says a lot that the cnuts in your mind are the jurors who refused to sanction a state sponsored execution and not the government that sought it.I think most people could have slept comfortably knowing that they decided Nikolas Cruise deserved the death penalty.
Premeditated, and boasted about doing it prior.
17 people killed and 17, injured many of them children as young as 14
He shot people on the floor to make sure they are dead
He showed no remorse by pretending to have a voice in his head that told him to do it.
We can't presume that the jury were ethically opposed, because they could have accepted the mental illness mitigation, but if it was ethical then they aren't heroes. They are cnuts for putting the victims' families through that ordeal while knowing that they will not do their duty.
Hope you and yours were not nearby for this.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
NY Times is saying it was a white male juvenile as well, so I am guessing that is the case.The suspected gunman, who is a juvenile male, was finally taken into custody at Old Milburnie Road and McConnell Oliver Drive just after 9:30 p.m.
Thanks. Fortunately I'm on the other side of the city from this. It's horrible. I assumed it was some crazy white kid based on the area and initial reports.Hope you and yours were not nearby for this.
Saw this on the local ABC News site (bolding mine):
NY Times is saying it was a white male juvenile as well, so I am guessing that is the case.
Just madness, complete madness.
Jesus christ, what a macabre story.
Glad to hear, we are the same (waaaaayyyyy over in Pittsboro). My knowledge of the Triangle Park area is not good enough yet to know where anything other than Costco and RDU are.Thanks. Fortunately I'm on the other side of the city from this. It's horrible. I assumed it was some crazy white kid based on the area and initial reports.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
So......not sure what to make of this. I don't like the framing of this as it almost sounds like "Dude's aren't getting any so they have no choice but to shoot up their schools/neighborhoods". Besides, if there was a correlation between not having sex and shooting up shit wouldn't most shooters be married men?Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Also you'd see more shootings in other countries too. Unless young American men feel more entitled to sex than young men from other countries? And maybe coupled with poor mental health counseling?So......not sure what to make of this. I don't like the framing of this as it almost sounds like "Dude's aren't getting any so they have no choice but to shoot up their schools/neighborhoods". Besides, if there was a correlation between not having sex and shooting up shit wouldn't most shooters be married men?
It's the usual trope from anti-gunners who have a tendency to suggest that having a gun (or guns) is some form of compensatory mechanism for a variety of masculine deficiencies.So......not sure what to make of this. I don't like the framing of this as it almost sounds like "Dude's aren't getting any so they have no choice but to shoot up their schools/neighborhoods". Besides, if there was a correlation between not having sex and shooting up shit wouldn't most shooters be married men?
Trope or truth?It's the usual trope from anti-gunners who have a tendency to suggest that having a gun (or guns) is some form of compensatory mechanism for a variety of masculine deficiencies.
Hehehe I mean it may be true some of the time but certainly not all of the time. It's a tactic that would be rightly called out as inappropriate in other settings.Trope or truth?